RISK COMMUNICATION FOR CHEMICAL RISK …Introduction to the Background Paper 1 RISK COMMUNICATION...

Introduction to the Background Paper 1

RISK COMMUNICATIONFOR CHEMICAL RISK MANAGEMENT

OECD-WORKSHOP BERLIN, GERMANY, 18-20 September 2000

BundesinstitutFür gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz und Veterinärmedizin

Ortwin Renn, Hans Kastenholz

In cooperation withAnne Brüggemann, Philip Gray, Carsten Henschel,

Bernd Rohrmann, Peter Wiedemann

Risk CommunicationChemical Product Risks

An OECD Background Paper


This publication was made possible by financial support from– Austria Federal Ministry of Environment;– Switzerland Federal Office of Public Health;– Germany Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers

and Veterinary Medicine.

___________________________________________________

Ortwin Renn, Hans Kastenholz

Risk Communication for Chemical Product RisksAn OECD Background Paper

Bundesinstitut für gesundheitlichen Verbraucherschutz undVeterinärmedizin, Berlin 2000

Druck: BgVV Dahlem__________________________________________________

PREFACE

At the 29th OECD Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and Working Party on Chemi-cals, the delegates expressed their support for a project on risk communication.

The aim of the project is to develop generic principles of effective risk communication withregard to risk management of industrial chemicals. The governments of Austria, Canada,Germany and Switzerland, in co-operation with BIAC, have agreed to co-sponsor a workshopto discuss communication tools and approaches that can help OECD Member countriesachieve their chemical risk management objectives in the most efficient and effective manner.

For this workshop, a background paper has been prepared in order to describe why and inwhat way appropriate risk communication is an essential element of an effective risk man-agement programme. The second objective was to identify the issues and questions pertinentto the Panel Discussions and Break-Out sessions at the Workshop. An annex to the back-ground paper includes a ‘State of the Art Report on Risk Communication’, a ‘Risk Communi-cation Resource Book’, the ‘Report for the OECD – Results of the Study on Risk Communi-cation’, and a ‘Selected Bibliography’ on Risk Communication. The background paper is nowdistributed in advance to persons who will be attending the Workshop.

Together, the background paper and the consolidated report of the Workshop presentationsand the discussions at the break-out sessions will provide the Joint Meeting with an opportu-nity to address the question as to whether and how to proceed with the preparation of a guid-ance document on risk communication that could be published by the OECD.

To date, the scope of the project has been on risk communication issues related to consumersof chemical products. However, the Issue Team recognises the importance of drawing on riskcommunication work conducted for other relevant issues (e.g., chemical releases from indus-trial facilities), other sectors (e.g., the food industry) as well as other target groups (e.g., work-ers), as there may be experiences and ‘lessons learned’ that could be of value to the project. Itis hoped and expected that the outputs from the OECD Risk Communication project will bedeveloped in such a way that they can be applicable to, or can serve as templates for, otherrelevant issues, sectors or target groups. Experts interested in risk communication issues be-yond chemicals as well as a broad range of stakeholder groups should thus be encouraged bysuch an approach to participate in the project.

In the course of the preparations, the OECD Issue Team was careful to ensure that as broad aspectrum of opinions as possible was voiced on all subjects to be addressed at the Workshop.Therefore, we have provided in the agenda one day for contributions by the participants inaddition to the papers and this background document.

It will be a great pleasure to welcome you as a participant and I look forward to many livelyand fruitful discussions.

Dr. Rolf F. HertelDirector and ProfessorChairOECD Issue Team on Risk Communication


OECD Issue Team on Risk Communication

William Bishop BIACUlrich Bornewasser BIACJacques De Peyer Swiss Federal Office of Public HealthTeruyoshi Hayamizu Japanese Environmental AgencyRolf F. Hertel (Chair) BgVV, GermanyScott Houston (Secretary) BIACHans Kastenholz Center of Technology Assessment, GermanyPaul Kreuzer STTV-National Product Control, FinlandEdmund Plattner Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water-

management, AustriaOrtwin Renn Center of Technology Assessment, GermanyRichard Sedlak Soap & Detergent Association, USARichard Sigman OECDJoel Weiner HCSC CanadaJulie Wyeth HSE, UKMaged Younes WHO/PCS

Corresponding participants

Roccio Alatorre MexicoKarel Blaha ENV SzechienCristina Cortinas de Nava MexicoKaren Cronin NewzealandAlessandro DiDomenico ISS ItalyMarion R. Evans HSE, UKAndrew Fasey HSE, UKJeongue Park Korea

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO THE BACKGROUND PAPER ................................................ 9

PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 13

PART II: BACKGROUND PAPER .......................................................................... 27

1. Focus of the Background Paper..................................................................... 29

2. Challenges of Risk Communication in the Chemical Sector .......................... 32

3. How do People Perceive Risks? .................................................................... 34

4. Role and Functions of the Media in Shaping Risk Perception........................ 39

5. Tools and Approaches to Risk Communication ............................................. 44

6. Trust in Institutions and Information Sources ................................................. 47

7. Coping with Risk: Stakeholder Involvement ................................................... 53

8. Evaluating Risk Communication Campaigns.................................................. 57

9. Conclusions.................................................................................................... 61

PART III: ORIENTATIONS ...................................................................................... 64

Practical Orientations for Successful Risk Communication.............................. 3


ANNEX I: ”STATE OF THE ART” REPORT ON RISK COMMUNICATION1. Definition and Objectives of Risk Communication.............................................. 92. The WBGU Risk Classification......................................................................... 103. Research Insights from Risk Communication Studies...................................... 154. References....................................................................................................... 83

ANNEX II: RISK COMMUNICATION RESOURCE BOOK1. Introduction....................................................................................................... 952. Risk Communication Manuals........................................................................ 1003. Case Studies .................................................................................................. 1474. Major International Programmes on Risk Communication ............................. 1595. Addresses and Internet Sites ......................................................................... 1616. Abbreviations.................................................................................................. 1697. References..................................................................................................... 170

ANNEX III: REPORT FOR THE OECD:RESULTS OF THE SURVEY ON RISK COMMUNICATION

1. Background ..................................................................................................... 177

2. Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 178

3. Presentation of the Results ............................................................................. 179

4. Major Conclusions from the Study................................................................... 184

ANNEX IV

1. Selected Bibliography...................................................................................... 191

2. Authors ............................................................................................................ 207

INTRODUCTION TO THE BACKGROUND PAPER

Risk communication emerged out of research in risk perception that showed that public con-cerns about hazards did not correspond with the risk assessments of most experts. Experts andthe governmental regulatory bodies manage hazards based on scientific assessments of theirpotential risks. Risk in this context is defined as a combination of magnitude and probabilityof a hazard event occurring. Risk perception research showed that most members of the publicshare a different understanding of the term risk. They employ a number of qualitative riskcharacteristics, such as voluntariness, dread, control options, and familiarity, when confrontedwith hazardous situations and asked to evaluate risks (Slovic 1987). The field of risk commu-nication developed as a means to research how best expert assessments could be communi-cated to the public so that the tension between public perceptions and expert judgement couldbe reduced (Plough and Krimsky 1987). During the last two decades, numerous risk commu-nication projects were launched as a response to both the environmental regulation requiringopen information policies as well as to the increasing demands by the public to be informedabout the potential hazards that they face. Consumers of chemical products as well as neigh-bors of chemical facilities all over the world have become more sensitive when it comes toexposure to chemical risks. They demand to gain better access to information about the po-tential risks and want to be involved in two-way-communication programs.

Based on these demands, the practice of risk communication evolved over several stages: In arecent article, Baruch Fischhoff identified six phases in risk communication. It first startedwith the notion that risk communicators wanted to convey the correct numbers. This approachobviously failed. So risk communication practices evolved over five additional steps ofchanging risk communication paradigms, until the professional risk community came to theconclusion that risk communication entails making the public a partner in the mutual attemptto manage risks. The recent report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences echoes this newunderstanding of risk communication and encourages risk professionals to foster stakeholderparticipation and involvement in risk management (Stern and Fineberg 1996). The report em-phasizes the need for a combination of assessment and dialogue which the authors haveframed the "analytic-deliberative" approach. Two-way communication and stakeholder in-volvement are the two major instruments of the latest stage in risk communication.

The popularity associated with the concepts of two-way-communication, trust-building, andstakeholder participation, however, obscures the challenge of how risk communicators canand should put these noble goals into practice and ensure that risk management reflects com-petence, efficiency, and fair burden sharing. How can and should risk managers collect publicpreferences, integrate public input into the management process, and assign the appropriate


roles to technical experts, stakeholders (i.e., socially organized groups that are or perceivethemselves as being affected by the decision) and members of the public? Who represents thepublic? The elected politicians, administrators, stakeholders, or all persons who will be af-fected by the risk? There is a large amount of individual variance when lay persons are askedto give their best risk estimate (Drottz-Sjöberg 1991; Dake 1991). Which estimate should beused for risk management? Which concerns are legitimate for being used in decisions thatmay determine life or death of many people?

There are no simple answers to these questions. This was one of the main reasons why OECDbegan work in this area. The OECD Risk Management Programme of Work calls for the de-velopment of ”methodologies and technical tools for socio-economic analysis and manage-ment of communication of risks”. To meet this mandate, an Issue Team was formed to:– identify what Member countries are doing in the field of communication and manage-

ment of the risks posed by chemicals (i.e., identifying the different approaches andcommunication tools being used, lessons learned, and possible areas where improve-ments could be made and that could benefit from future international cooperation); and,

– develop basic principles or generic tools which could be used as guidance to improvecommunication among stakeholders.

The Issue Team is chaired by Germany with the assistance and support of the InternationalCouncil on Metals and the Environment (BIAC). The Issue Team also includes representa-tives from Canada, DG24 of the European Commission, Japan, New Zealand and the UnitedKingdom.

One of the first tasks of the Issue Team was to survey experts in Member countries (govern-ment, industry, academia and other NGOs) to ascertain their interest in having the OECD dowork in the field of risk communication. In addition, the survey was designed to collect in-formation that would help prioritize those issues that would benefit from discussion at theinternational level, keeping in mind the important differences in social and cultural values thatexist between OECD Member countries. The Issue Team asked a group of social scientistsdirected by Ortwin Renn (Center of Technology Assessment, Germany) to develop the surveyand report on the results (see Annex III).

The results of the survey revealed an overwhelming support for the continuation of the proj-ect, and, in particular the organization of an OECD Workshop on risk communication for thechemical sector. The report of the workshop, could serve as input into the preparation of aguidance document that could be published by OECD. OECD Member countries will reviewthe workshop report at the November 2000 Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and

Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology, and decide whether and how tocontinue work on the development of a guidance document on risk communication.

In support of the workshop, the Issue Team began work on a background document on riskcommunication (this report) to:– describe why and how good risk communication is an essential element of an effective

risk management program;– identify those issues and questions that will be pertinent to the panel discussions and

break-out sessions during the workshop in September of 2000;– point out the opportunities of risk communication in the chemical sector from a practical

perspective;– make communicators aware of the problems, risks, and pitfalls of risk communication;– list relevant resources that are available for risk communicators (i.e., books, articles,

videos, websites, etc.) and– provide initial thoughts on the key points which could appear in guidance for successful

risk communication efforts.

Meeting these broad objectives requires first a clear focus for composing a meaningful anduseful background document and secondly a stringent and economical structuring of the mate-rial in line with the chosen focus.

While there are many important aspects of risk communication, the OECD Member countriesdecided that the background document (and later the workshop) should focus primarily onchemical products for consumer use, including some considerations about the public percep-tion of chemical risks in general. None-the-less, OECD Member countries recognize the im-portance of drawing on risk communication work conducted for other relevant issues (e.g.,chemical releases from industrial facilities) other sectors (e.g., the food industry) or for othertarget groups (e.g., workers) as there may be experiences and lessons learned that could be ofvalue to this project. To meet the second requirement, i.e. to propose a clear and consistentstructure of the background paper, the following overall structure of the document has beenused:

– Part 1 serves as an executive summary for the whole document. It covers the main areasof the background paper and provides a clear and precise set of practical advice for dif-ferent risk communication purposes.

– Part 2 contains the main body of the background paper. In order to make it as useful aspossible for the participants of the workshop, it is organized in accordance with thethemes of each break-out session of the proposed workshop in September of 2000. Part


2 provides background material on all the major issues that will be addressed during theworkshop. Each subchapter includes a precise description of the results and practicalimplications of risk communication research with respect to each session topic.

– Part 3 consists of a set of practical orientations for risk communicators with respect tochemical risks.

– Annex I comprises a ”state of the art” report on risk communication. This part serves asa primer for anyone interested in the research results of risk perception and communica-tion studies. The material presented there represents an overview of the major accom-plishments and insights with respect to risk communication research and practice. Itcontains all the scientific evidence for the conclusions drawn in Part 2 of the back-ground document. Since the survey revealed that most participants had a strong interestin getting more information on the main objectives of risk communication (enlighten-ment, trust-building, behavioral adaptation, conflict resolution), we structured this partin accordance with these main communication functions. Less importance has beengiven to behavioral adaptation so that the material collected in Annex I is primarily fo-cused on enlightenment (perceiving and processing risk information); trust-building(credibility of communicators) and conflict resolution (stakeholder involvement).

– Annex II serves the function of a resource book. It lists the main manuals on risk com-munication and provides a brief description of what potential users can expect to findthere with respect to communicating chemical risks. It also provides an overview of casestudy material. In addition, Part 3 includes useful addresses and Internet links where in-terested risk communicators can get more information or assistance.

– Annex III summarizes the main results of the OECD survey on risk communication.– Annex IV includes a bibliography of all relevant literature.

The Annexes of the background paper should be used like an encyclopedia. Each chapter inAnnex 1 is written in a way that it does not build upon the material presented in the previouschapters. So if somebody, for example, wants to know more about the effects of the media onrisk perception, the main insights can be found in main body of Part 2. For more and detailedinformation, one can look up the corresponding chapter in Annex 1. For all those readers in-terested in existing manuals or information links, Annex 2 provides the necessary material.Finally, if one would like to know what the exact references, the bibliography in Annex IVcould be consulted.

PART I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Purpose of Paper ....................................................................................... 15

2. Risk Perception.......................................................................................... 16

3. The Role of the Media................................................................................ 18

4. Tools and Approaches ............................................................................... 19

5. Trust and Credibility ................................................................................... 20

6. Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................................... 22

7. Evaluation .................................................................................................. 23

8. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 24

Executive Summary 15

1. PURPOSE OF PAPER

Considering the need for risk communication in the chemical sector and the new develop-ments in the practice of communication, the OECD Risk Management Programme of Workcalls for the development of ”methodologies and technical tools for socio-economic analysisand management of communication of risks”. To meet this mandate, an Issue Team wasformed.

The Issue Team is chaired by Germany with the assistance and support of the InternationalCouncil on Metals and the Environment (BIAC). The Team also includes representatives fromCanada, DG24 of the European Commission, Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

One of the first tasks of the Issue Team was to survey experts in Member countries (govern-ment, industry, academia and other NGOs) to ascertain their interest in having the OECD dowork in the field of risk communication. In addition, the survey was designed to collect in-formation that would help prioritize those issues that would benefit from discussion at theinternational level, keeping in mind the important differences in social and cultural values thatexist between OECD Member countries. The results of the survey revealed an overwhelmingsupport for the continuation of the project, and, in particular the organization of an OECDWorkshop on risk communication for the chemical sector.

In support of the workshop, the Issue Team began work on a background document on riskcommunication (this report) to:– describe why and how good risk communication is an essential element of an effective

risk management program;– identify those issues and questions that will be pertinent to the panel discussions and

break-out sessions during the OECD Workshop in September of 2000;– point out the opportunities of risk communication in the chemical sector from a practical

perspective;– make communicators aware of the problems, risks, and pitfalls of risk communication;– list relevant resources that are available for risk communicators (i.e., books, articles,

videos, websites, etc.) and– provide initial thoughts on the key points which could appear in guidance for successful

risk communication efforts.

While there are many important aspects of risk communication, the OECD Member countriesdecided that the background document (and later the workshop) should focus primarily on

chemical products for consumer use, including some considerations about the public percep-tion of chemical risks in general.

Chemicals in products are as much part of modern life as are electronic devices or communi-cation tools. Public concerns about the health and safety implications of chemical productshave been primarily targeted towards food items and pharmaceuticals. Pesticides and herbi-cides have also been in the focus of public debate. Regulations have been in place as a meansto minimize risks to the consumers. In spite of major regulatory actions by specialized agen-cies and risk communication efforts by companies, the public perception of chemical risks hasremained critical over the last two decades. Risks from chemicals are difficult to communicatebecause they are usually effective only over a longer time period, may induce negative impactsonly in combination with other risk factors (such as lifestyle and nutrition) and can hardly bedetected by human senses. Risk communication in this area needs to address the followingmajor challenges:– to explain the concept of probability and stochastic effects;– to explain the difference between risk and hazard;– to cope with long-term effects:– to provide an understanding of synergistic effects;– to improve the credibility of the agencies and institutions that provide risk information

(which is crucial in situations in which personal experience is lacking and people de-pend on neutral and disinterested information).

As modern economies rely on safe and reliable products, it is essential that all users of chemi-cals be informed about potential risks and the necessary precautionary measures to protectthemselves. At the same time, it is necessary to communicate with people about their worriesand concerns even if they are not backed up by scientific evidence. Risk communication is amandatory step in the chain of responsible management. Governmental agencies, industry andNGOs are all required to take part in this communication effort.

This report focuses primarily on the issues and challenges facing risk communicators involvedwith risk management of chemical products for consumer use. Communication to the needs ofconsumers include three major elements: information about the risks of the product, the cir-cumstances of the production and transportation of these products, and the beliefs and asso-ciations with respect to the producers or regulators. In addition, many consumers want publicstakeholders to be involved in the regulatory and communication process. The importance ofcommunication will be demonstrated from the standpoint of the regulatory agencies of theOECD member countries, but the lessons provided below are also useful for other communi-cators in the field, i.e. industry, consumer associations, and other NGOs.


2. RISK PERCEPTION

One of the most prominent obstacles towards effective risk communication about chemicalproducts is the intuitive process of risk perception. Regardless whether consumers prefer in-dustrial or environmental values, their cognitive frame is marked by the concept of chemicalsas pollutants and poisons. What does this situation mean for risk communication?

– Risk information should be related to the qualitative characteristics that people associatewith risk. These characteristics include: dread, familiarity, personal or institutional con-trol, perception of fairness in risk-benefit distribution, assignment of blame, and others.It is important to address these concerns rather than focussing on probabilities and mag-nitude of risk only. Consumers perceive risks of chemical products predominantly undera health perspective; environmental considerations play a role only if they are amplifiedby mass media or induced into the debate through political mobilization. In addition,production methods (such as using methods of genetic engineering) do matter for con-sumers when judging risks and their acceptability.

– Often consumers associate hazards with consumer products and underestimate the de-pendency of effects from dose and circumstances of exposure. If a product contains aningredient, which might be toxic or carcinogenic at a higher dose, most people judge themere presence of this ingredient as sufficient proof for its immanent danger. Since con-sumers have to rely on experts for providing them reliable information on dose-effect-relationships, trust becomes a crucial issue for risk management. In low trust situations,consumers usually demand the absence of known hazards from anything they might beexposed to. As a consequence, trust-building becomes a major task for all communica-tion efforts (see Section 5).

– Any communication program should avoid linking the risk communication effort tovested interests. If risk communication is being perceived as a new strategy of industryto avoid risk reduction measures and to avoid being subjected to the precautionary prin-ciple, the communication program will be rejected by most observers. There would belittle chance for a regulatory reform. Rather risk communication programs should stressthe potential benefits of a regulatory regime that takes all serious risks into account andthat makes sure that the benefits are equally shared by industrialists, environmentalists,and the consumers. It needs to be proven that public health is served better if risk regu-lation is based on thorough assessments rather than on suspicions.

Risk communication is particularly difficult for high-consequence low- probability risks,which are associated with involuntariness, dread, lack of control, and unfamiliarity. To ad-dress these negative risk characteristics, it may be helpful to point to functional equivalents ofthese characteristics in a broader societal context. Potential equivalents are the assurance of ademocratic decision-making process to counteract the impression of involuntariness and, as areplacement for personal control, the independence and impartiality of operating and regulat-ing institutions. This may produce trust in their capability to monitor routine emissions, checksafety devices, and intervene if safety of consumer products is jeopardized.

3. THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA

All mechanisms of risk perception are contingent on information derived from either personalexperience, interaction with others or intermediary sources. A vast amount of informationabout risks stems from intermediary sources. People develop attitudes and positions with re-spect to risky technologies and or activities on the basis of second-hand information. Thisinformation is transmitted by the mass media. Many beliefs about risks and risk sources arehence shaped or at least influenced by the information and evaluations that the media transmitto their consumers. The media perform a dual role in the communication process: first, theycollect information from primary sources and process this information by applying profes-sional and institutional rules that govern the selection of received messages and their inter-pretation. Second, they send information to the final receiver. What can risk communicatorsdo in dealing with the media?

– With respect to handling the media, risk communicators should be aware of the majorselection rules of the media. Media report about events, not continuous performance.Hardly any journalist is interested, for example, in writing a story about a long safety re-cord of a hazardous waste facility. If such a facility, however, faces an accidental releaseof hazardous material, one can be sure that this event will become headline news. To geta message across, communicators need to link their message to events, not necessarilyphysical events. Social events such as a celebration of 25 years of safe performance of achemical factory or a completion of a scientific study can also meet the event require-ment.

– Another major characteristic of the media is their interest in eyewitness reports. Thesetestimonies relate abstract issues or events to unique human experiences (which jour-nalists assume help readers to identify with the victims or managers of the risk). Infor-mation that emphasizes the human component and personalizes abstract material is


more likely to be accepted by the media than documents about the sequence of events ororganizational competence. However, risk communicators should be aware that "pack-aging" the information for the purpose of pleasing the transmitter always faces the riskof creating suspicion and distrust. Transmitters often associate good packaging with theintent to manipulate the audience. One should never forget that social transmitters of in-formation processing are not computers or radios that operate according to pre-structured rules, but they constitute thinking beings who reflect the messages they re-ceive and change their selection rules to fit the circumstances.

4. TOOLS AND APPROACHES

After looking at risk perception and the media, this subchapter will focus on the communica-tor and his or her role in the risk communication process. Although topics vary from risksource to risk source, most risk debates center around three themes:– factual evidence and probabilities;– institutional performance, expertise, and experience;– conflicting conceptions about world views and value systems.

The first level involves factual arguments about risk probabilities and the extent of potentialdamage. If the problem is a lack of technical knowledge on the part of the public, proceduresof communication should focus on informing the public with the consensual expert opinions.The second, more intense, level concerns institutional competence to deal with chemical risks.At this level the focus of the debate is on the distribution of risks and benefits, and the trust-worthiness of the risk management institutions. At the third level the conflict is defined alongdifferent social values, cultural lifestyles, and their impact on risk management. In this case,neither technical expertise nor institutional competence and openness are adequate conditionsfor public involvement. What can risk communicators do to address these three levels ade-quately?

a. If the problem is located on the first level, i.e. the information needs are centered aroundtechnical information, the best tools are:– brochures that are well tested with the target audience;– information videos or Internet presentations (again tested for comprehensibility and

attractiveness);– direct lectures or learning experiences (hands-on experiments, evening school, con-

sumer training, etc,).

b. If the problem is located on the second level, these tools and approaches do not suffice.Institutional performance and trustworthiness demand additional means of communica-tion. Among them are:– inspection tours of facilities;– face-to-face meeting between skeptics of the organization and organization leaders;– open book procedures (no secrecy, no hidden agendas);– data link of environmental performance values from a company to environmental;

groups (so they can see the performance);– inclusion of skeptical stakeholder in an advisory board or expert committee.

c. If the problem is located on the third level, values and lifestyles are the main issues ofcommunication. This level demands instruments and tools that are directed towards dis-course and two-way-dialogue. Among them are:– Round Tables with representatives of different stakeholder groups;– mediation, arbitration or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms;– direct citizen participation through advisory boards, panels, juries, etc.;– involvement in governmental programs for priority setting and regulatory actions;– participation in public debates and open forums.

The idea behind third level debates is to find a common understanding of the goals and vi-sions for the future development of industry, society and social affairs. Consumer protection isone element in this larger framework of social concerns ranging from social justice to societalresponsibility for personal growth and well-being. Regulatory agencies as well as industrialrepresentatives are expected to participate in such debates as this is part of the legitimizingefforts of social forces in a plural society. At the same time, issues of risk-taking and risk tol-erance demand discourse-based activities that provide reassurance to each actor that all viewsare taken into account and that provide sufficient incentives for reaching common grounds oreven a common consensus.

5. TRUST AND CREDIBILITY

What kind of advice can we give to risk communicators of how to design and implement arisk communication program that incorporates the findings of past research on trust and credi-bility? If OECD regulatory agencies want to reach a situation where confidence is placed inthe efficiency and effectiveness of their actions, they will have to fulfill some preconditions,which determine their prospective role in risk communication. These requirements can bestructured according to the target element to which trust should be assigned.


a) To improve the trust in a message, we recommend explaining the rationale of risk analy-sis and its role for risk management so that the audience is better prepared as to what toexpect. In addition, the decision making process and the past record of the institutionshould be included in the message so that people can assign competence to the actors andget a better feeling of the trade-offs that had to be made in meeting the specific risk man-agement task. Evidence of competence, fairness towards other viewpoints, and referencesto commonly shared values and beliefs will make a message more attractive and couldhelp to address the centrally and peripherally interested audience at the same time. Con-clusions should be made explicit and vested interests should not only be admitted but jus-tified in terms of public mandate or economic function.

b) To improve trust in a personal communicator, the major goal is to develop a communi-cation climate that enables the audience to identify with the communicator and to sharehis or her experiences and beliefs. The more a communicator manages to avoid the maskof an institutional spokesperson and the more he or she can express compassion and em-pathy for the audience, the more likely the audience will identify with the speaker and feelcompelled to the arguments. Conveying probabilistic information is a real challenge, butcan be done in reference to everyday experience of budget constraints and consumerproducts. Furthermore, evidence of successful use of risk analyses in hazard managementcan serve as demonstration to define the role and limitations of risk analysis in improvingpublic health and the environment. Reference should be made to commonly shared sym-bols, appealing formats, and to previous performance record of openness and honesty.One should definitely avoid negative labeling of potential opponents or typical advertis-ing gimmicks

c) To improve the credibility of an institution, the vital factor is performance, not publicrelations. Confidence has to be gained by meeting the institutional goals and objectives.In addition, credibility is linked to the evidence of being cost-effective and open to publicdemands. These two goals are often in conflict with each other, however, they have to betreated as complementary, and not as substitutive goals. Fairness and flexibility are majorelements of openness. In addition to assuring sufficient external control and supervision,public participation may be implemented as a means to demonstrate the compliance withthe political mandate and to avoid the impression of hidden agendas. On the premise ofgood performance, communication programs can be designed that reflect these accom-plishments. Such programs should provide honest, complete, and accurate informationthat is responsive to the needs and demands of the prospective audience. This can only bedone if the source engages in an organized effort to collect feedback from the audienceand establish a two-way communication process. Involvement of citizens, open house

policies, discussion forums, open TV channels, or other means should be explored to as-sure the functioning of the two-way communication structure.

d) To improve the social climate is not within the realm of possibilities for a single commu-nicator. But large-scale organizations or association of organizations can affect the overallclimate. One way to improve the climate is to accept and even endorse checks and bal-ances in the control of the organization. The other obvious solution is to demonstrate theflexibility and foresight of the organization in meeting and anticipating new public claimsand values. The impersonal nature of institutions may be mitigated by providing speciallocal services and by engaging in community activities and programs. Governmental in-stitutions will receive more credibility if they do not leave the impression of permanentcrisis management, but of competence and preparedness for long-term threats and chal-lenges (in particular pertaining to environment and technology).

Without credibility, governmental agencies to regulate chemical risks will not play any role inestablishing reasonable standards, whatever institutional form they will have. Successfulcommunication begins before imparting information; it creates the institutional and structuralpreconditions for information and resulting recommendations to be accepted.

6. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

What advice can we give to risk communicators of how to design and implement a risk com-munication program that incorporates the main findings of past research on stakeholder in-volvement? The first lesson is to distinguish among the three levels of the debate as men-tioned above. Nothing is more detrimental and frustrating for all participants involved thanaddressing an audience who expects a third level debate and is confronted with a detailedtechnical analysis of the issue. The risk communicator should investigate the level of debatebeforehand and design different communication programs for each level.

When organizing communication programs for stakeholder involvement, several criteriashould be met. Among those criteria are:

– Variability of options: Do the participants have the choice to select one option out of avariety of options that are all feasible in the specific situation? This is particularly im-portant, if government agencies organize involvement processes, as the participants ex-pect several options from which they are allowed to choose. If the purpose is only to


convey a message or to improve understanding among the constituencies, stakeholderparticipation via discourse is not the right format.

– Equity of exposure: Are all stakeholders or the respective constituency exposed in someway to the potential disadvantages of the proposed options? (so to avoid a distinctionbetween affected and indifferent stakeholders). If stakeholders are invited to participate,they should have an equal interest in the matter. Otherwise, people will question the le-gitimacy of peripheral stakeholders to be present at the discourse table.

– Personal experience: Do participants have some experience with the problem and dothey feel competent to give recommendations after they are further educated about theproblem and the remedial options? This is particular relevant if consumer issues are atstake. Participating stakeholders should be knowledgeable about major consumer issuesand have a basic understanding of chemical risk management.

– Personal relevance: Do participants judge the problem as serious enough to sacrificetheir time to work on solutions? It might be frustrating for a governmental agency to in-vite stakeholders to a common problem-solving discourse, but most of the invitees donot show up. The organizers have to make sure that all relevant stakeholders have aninterest in and a commitment to the process.

– Seriousness and openness of agency: Is the managerial level of the inviting agencywilling to accept or at least carefully consider the recommendations of the discourse ordoes s/he pursue hidden agendas? Often, agency personal responsible for risk communi-cation are enthusiastic about stakeholder involvement, this enthusiasm is, however, notshared by the upper management. Again, it is very frustrating for all participants, if therecommendations are not taken seriously by the decision-makers.

The mere desire to initiate a two-way-communication process and the willingness to listen topublic concerns are nor sufficient for involving stakeholders. Discursive processes need astructure that assures the integration of technical expertise, regulatory requirements, and pub-lic values. These different inputs should be combined in such a fashion that they contribute tothe deliberation process the type of expertise and knowledge that can claim legitimacy withina rational decision making procedure. It does not make sense to replace technical expertisewith vague public perceptions nor is it justified to have the experts insert their own valuejudgments into what ought to be a democratic process. These arguments have motivated therecent U.S. Panel on Risk Characterization to advocate an "analytic-deliberative approach bywhich expertise and deliberations are systematically linked with each other.

7. EVALUATION

Evaluation of risk communication is crucial for the measurement of success or failure. Riskcommunicators are well advised to have an evaluation program at hand before they launch arisk communication program. The empirical analysis of the effects and side-effects of com-munication will help them to redesign the communication process over time and to improvetheir communication efforts. With respect to the study design for evaluation of risk communi-cation programs, crucial issues include:– the specification of target populations (representing all relevant parties in the communi-

cation process),– a longitudinal design, appropriate timing of data collections and the inclusion of control

groups.

There are two focal issues of causality to be considered: (1) to show that intended effects areactually induced by the intervention under examination (and not other concurring extraneousinfluences); and (2) to clarify whether unintended impacts are caused by the program.

In a wider perspective, the researcher needs to explicate whether conclusions about the con-tent, process and outcomes of the RC campaign are valid beyond the specific circumstancesand participants of the study.

8. CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this executive summary was to review the current knowledge about riskcommunication with respect to chemicals for consumer use, to present the empirical evidencewith respect to the effectiveness of risk communication, and to delineate some practicalguidelines for risk communicators based on psychological or sociological research.

Almost all risk communication studies have one message in common: Risk communication isnot a public relations problem. Advertisement and packaging of messages can help to improverisk communication, but they will be insufficient to overcome the problems of public distrustin risk management institutions and to cope with the incapability of the present risk arena toproduce rational and consistent risk policies. The potential remedies to these two problems liein a better performance of all institutions dealing with or regulating risks and in a re-structuring of the risk debate to meet the requirements of a two-way communication process.


With respect to performance, it is well understood that many risk management institutionscomplain that their specific task is not well understood and that public expectations do notmatch the mandate or the scope of management options available to these institutions. This isspecifically prevalent in the risk arena because the issue at stake, health and environment, topsthe concerns of the public of all OECD countries and because the stochastic nature of riskimpedes an unambiguous evaluation of management success or failure. In addition, chemicalsare often associated with artificial ingredients that cause suspicion and fear.

In spite of these difficulties, careful management, openness to public demands, and continu-ous effort to communicate are important conditions for gaining trustworthiness and compe-tence. They cannot guarantee the success, but they make success more probable. Therefore,the first major lesson of risk communication is to start with a critical review of one's ownperformance. Is the performance good enough to justify public trust? Are mechanisms inplace that help to discern the needs and requests of stakeholders and the general public? Is atwo-way communication program implemented? Is the communication honest, clear, compre-hensive, and timely?

If these questions can be positively answered, the designing of communication can be opti-mized. The second major lesson of risk communication is to tailor communication accordingto the needs of the targeted audience and not to the needs of the information source. Provid-ing information that people request is always more effective than providing answers to ques-tions that nobody has asked. Most of the guidelines in Part III ”Orientations” specify thepremises and conditions for a receiver-focused communication program.

The third major lesson of communication is to adjust and modify one's communication pro-gram as a result of an organized effort to collect feedback and to sense changes in values andpreferences. Many successful programs of the past have turned out inappropriate to addressthe audience of today. Constant adjustment requires efforts to collect systematic feedbackfrom the community, the relevant stakeholders, and the general public. This calls for a con-tinuous evaluation program.

By carefully reviewing in-house performance, by tailoring the content of the communicationto the needs of the final receivers, and by adjusting the messages to the changes in values andpreferences of a pluralist public, risk communication can convey a basic understanding for thechoices and constraints of risk management and thus create the foundations for trustworthyrelationship between the communicator and the audience. Although many receivers of riskinformation may not agree with the actual decisions institutions have made in setting priorities

or selecting management options, they may realize that these decisions are results of opendiscussions and the assignment of painful but reasonable trade-offs.

Even if all these suggestions are followed, risk communication may not work. External influ-ences, the overall climate of distrust, management failures in the past, and specific incidentscan transform risk communication into a never-ending frustration. This frustration -so familiarto most risk managers- is an indication of the need for a more fundamental risk discourse.Such a discourse can help to resolve the fundamental choices with respect to basic values andpreferred lifestyle, i.e., the contents of a third level debate, as described in section 4 of thissummary.

The ideal target of risk communication is not the person who readily accepts and believes allthe information given, but who processes all the available information to form a well-balancedjudgment in accordance with the factual evidence, the arguments of all sides, and his/her owninterests and preferences. To accomplish this goal, a risk communication program is needed toprovide the necessary qualifications to all participants and empower them to be equal partnersin making decisions about risk. The ultimate goal of risk communication is reconciliation ofexpertise, rational management strategies and public preferences.

PART II

BACKGROUND PAPER

1. Focus of the Background Paper ................................................................ 29

2. Challenges of Risk Communication in the Chemical Sector ...................... 32

3. How do People Perceive Risks? ................................................................ 343.1 Research Results....................................................................................... 343.2 Implications for Risk Communicators......................................................... 37

4. Role and Functions of the Media in Shaping Risk Perception ................... 394.1 Review of Research Results ...................................................................... 394.2 Lessons for Risk Communicators .............................................................. 43

5. Tools and Approaches to Risk Communication ......................................... 445.1 Research Results on Risk Debates ........................................................... 445.2 Lessons for Risk Communicators .............................................................. 46

6. Trust in Institutions and Information Sources............................................. 476.1 Research Results....................................................................................... 476.2 Lessons for Risk Communicators .............................................................. 49

7. Coping with Risk: Stakeholder Involvement ............................................... 537.1 Research Results....................................................................................... 537.2 Lessons for Risk Communicators .............................................................. 55

8. Evaluating Risk Communication Campaigns ............................................. 578.1 Research Results....................................................................................... 578.1 Lessons for Risk Communicators .............................................................. 60

9. Conclusions ............................................................................................... 61

Background Paper 29

1. FOCUS OF THE BACKGROUND PAPER

Chemicals in products are as much part of modern life as are electronic devices or communi-cation tools. Many consumers, however, are often not aware of the multitude of chemical in-gredients in almost any product of their choice, and if they are, they are often concerned aboutthe potential side effects of these chemicals for human health and the environment. Chemicalproducts are often perceived as ”unnatural” and associated with hidden risks. As moderneconomies rely on safe and reliable products, it is essential that all users of chemicals are in-formed about potential risks and the necessary precautionary measures to protect themselves.At the same time, it is necessary to communicate with people about their worries and concernseven if they are not backed up by scientific evidence. Risk communication is a mandatory stepin the chain of responsible management. Governmental agencies, industry and NGOs are allrequired to take part in this communication effort.

In addition, the chemical industry (producers of organic and inorganic chemicals) as well asgovernmental agencies for regulating chemicals are faced with increasing requirements by thepublic, customers and politicians concerning the production, use, and disposal of chemicals. Ahighly differentiated and complex system of regulations exists on the regional, national, andinternational level. In Germany alone, chemical manufacturers are confronted with more than10,000 regulations. Companies that trade all over the world have to comply with a multitudeof laws and regulations, which in part conflict with each other. The legal situation is thus an-other major incentive to meet all information requirements.

Based partially on legal requirements and partially on public concerns, chemical manufactur-ers face increasing demands for more information and participation from the consumers, spe-cial stakeholder groups, and the public at large. The need for risk communication has beenvoiced since the late 1960s. Although the chemical industry was not the prime target of publicinterest in risk issues (as was, for example, the nuclear industry), it became more and moreinvolved in risk controversies and public debates. A series of hazardous incidents (Bhopal,Seveso, Basel) increased public awareness of chemical risks and pressured governments andregulators to reduce or control risks. Public authorities reacted by tightening the regulation.Most prominent examples are the SARA Title III in the United States and the Seveso Direc-tives in the EU. In both instances, chemical manufacturers are required to set up managementprocedures to describe and reduce plant related risks, to cooperate closely with local authori-ties, to improve emergency planning and to communicate risks and behavioral guidelines forcoping with emergencies to the neighbors.

The chemical industry has responded to these new initiatives by launching its own program onResponsible Care. It started in the United States in the mid 1980s and has been extended to allOECD countries since then. The goal is to make health, safety and the environment part ofdecision making culture within the company and beyond. The Responsible Care Program in-cludes emergency response plans, community advisory panels and local emergency planningcommittees. It addresses environmental protection, occupational health, product stewardshipand communication with public. Responsible Care is only but one program of risk communi-cation. Reference could also be made to ICME‘s Environmental Charter as well as to the on-going activities of the chemical manufacturers of metals and metal products to provide infor-mation and better data to improve the understanding of their products and facilitate proper riskassessments.

Parallel to the issues of risks from chemical facilities, societies have been preoccupied withthe notion of risks associated with consumer products. Public concerns about the health andsafety implications of chemical products have been primarily targeted towards food items andpharmaceuticals. Pesticides and herbicides have also been in the focus of public debate.Regulations have been in place as a means to minimize risks to the consumers. In spite ofmajor regulatory actions by specialized agencies and risk communication efforts by compa-nies, the public perception of chemical risks has remained critical over the last two decadesand has become even more critical in many countries over this time period. Most risks impliedby chemical products are closely related with sensible use. Side effects of pharmaceuticals,toxicological or eco-toxicological effects of pesticides or herbicides, potential negative im-pacts of textile colors or plastic toys are all linked to the ”wise” use of these products by pro-fessionals or consumers. These risks can be significantly reduced if users know more aboutthe characteristics of the product and its risks. For this matter, risk information and consumerlabels (distinct from material safety data sheets required for commercial trade) have been amajor challenge for the chemical industry for a long time. In addition, regulators have beenactive in providing information to consumers themselves or demanding manufacturers or dis-tributors to attach information to their products.

For most chemical companies, product labeling such as data sheets and consumer informationconstitute two different domains. Most buyers of chemical products are other chemical com-panies that use basic chemical commodities as intermediates to produce final products such asdetergents, paints, polymers, pharmaceuticals, and others. Even the customers of these finalproducts are more often other companies, such as car manufacturers, the hardware industry,the appliance industry, the homebuilders etc., than private consumers. Labeling requirementsfor intermediate or industrial products are directed towards other professionals who have ex-perience with the product and are trained to deal with risks. The labels normally include de-

Background Paper 31

tailed descriptions of physical or chemical properties, required handling procedures and othersafety information (for example the material safety data sheets). These labels are not compre-hensible for a private consumer unless this person happens to be a professional in the field.

Most of the regulatory effort has been directed towards the labeling requirements. Agenciesdemand more comprehensive assessments of all chemicals that are introduced into the market.The chemical industry has intensified its efforts to assess its main products. Between 1988 and1993, the German Chemical Industry checked about one thousand High Volume Products(HVP) that make up for 90 % of the production. More recently, the International ChemicalCompanies Association (ICCA) launched a program to assess 1.000 HVP by OECD criteria.The Association of the German Chemical Industry (VCI) announced a voluntary program thatwould provide data on toxicological as well as eco-toxicological characteristics and the per-sistency of all products with more than one ton per year, including intermediates. Providing allthis information for regulatory agencies and producers further downstream is not a trivial task.Considering the mere number of many thousand intermediates, the complexity and uncertaintyconnected with exposure pathways and effects, the implications of the whole life cycle of theproducts involved, and the cross-national trade of these products, labeling requirements arestill a major challenge for industry and regulators alike.

The requirements for risk assessment and labeling are not the main focus of this report, how-ever. Our attention is to concentrate our analysis on the second major partner in risk commu-nication, i.e. the consumer. Consumer information has a different purpose compared to label-ing products: It is directed towards the end user of a product who is not a professional in thefield and is likely to respond in line with his or her risk perceptions. Information for this pur-pose needs to be basic, attractive for a lay audience and understandable. It should also reachits main objectives, i.e. to educate consumers to use the product in a safe and reliable manner.In addition, consumers are not only concerned about the risks coming from the product, theyalso raise concerns about downstream and upstream handling of the product that they pur-chase. Many consumers in Europe reject, for example, the use of genetic modification in agri-culture and the food industry, even if they are convinced that the final product is safe for them.Perceptions of safety and health risks rely on the perceived priorities of the product, the cir-cumstances of the production method and transportation modes, and the credibility and trust-worthiness of the producer and the regulator.

All of these issues will be addressed in the report. In addition, many consumers want publicstakeholders to be involved in the regulatory and communication effort. Therefore the reportalso highlights the opportunities and problems of stakeholder involvement. Other topics to beaddressed include the role of government in ensuring the successful interface between all

stakeholders, recent trend towards greater transparency and access to information legislation.The importance of communication will be demonstrated from the standpoint of the regulatoryagencies of the OECD member countries, but the lessons provided below are also useful forother communicators in the field, i.e. industry, consumer associations, and other NGOs.

2. CHALLENGES OF RISK COMMUNICATIONIN THE CHEMICAL SECTOR

Risks from chemicals may influence the physical, natural and human environment. Most pri-vate consumers are concerned about the health risks, environmental impacts and the safety ofchemicals. Risks from chemicals are difficult to communicate because they are usually effec-tive only over a longer time period, may induce negative impacts only in combination withother risk factors (such as lifestyle and nutrition) and can hardly be detected by human senses.Risk communication in this area needs to address the following major challenges:– to explain the concept of probability and stochastic effects;– to explain the difference between risk and hazard;– to cope with long-term effects;– to provide an understanding of synergistic effects;– to improve the credibility of the agencies and institutions that provide risk information

(which is crucial in situations in which personal experience is lacking and people de-pend on neutral and disinterested information).

Risk communication to consumers is a necessary and demanded activity, which is partly pre-scribed by governmental requirements and regulations, partly required by stakeholder demandand public pressure. In the light of new activism by consumer and environmental groups,chemical companies as well as governmental agencies feel obliged to provide more informa-tion and guidelines for consumers (as well as workers and bystanders). This new challenge isembedded in a new industrial and political paradigm of openness and ”right to know” policyframework. In addition, globalization and international trade make it mandatory that productsare properly labeled and potential end users in different countries have sufficient informationto handle the products safely.

There are different sources for potential human or environmental damage that have been asso-ciated with the use of chemicals. Among them are:– endocrine disrupters (pseudo-estrogens);– pesticides and herbicides;

Background Paper 33

– softeners;– Persistent organic pollutants;– genetically engineered products;– carcinogenic substances;– complex mixtures with links to multiple chemical syndrome and other related diseases.

The risks of all these potentially dangerous chemicals have been assessed by scientists withinindustry, universities and regulatory agencies. The normal assessment process follows a well-defined protocol of toxicological or epidemiological procedures, which ensure that regulatoryor other management actions are based on significant evidence of a potential damage. Thenew trends in risk management go beyond efforts to assess risks, however. The EU Environ-ment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has announced that the EU chemicals policy will beamong the top priorities of the coming EU Sixth Environmental Action Program. She favors ashift from a risk-based assessment to the application of the precautionary principle). In itsrecent communication, the EU Commission stated: ”Applying the precautionary principle is akey tenet of its policy, and the choices it makes to this end will continue to affect the views itdefends internationally, on how this principle should be applied” (Commission 2000, p.3).Although the EU-paper specifies some of the major requirements for the application of theprecautionary principle, a scientifically sound, politically feasible and legally unambiguousconcept that spans all relevant risk fields is still missing. As demanded by the EU, tapplyingthe precautionary principle needs to be in line with traditional methods of scientific risk as-sessments and, at the same time, to include compelling responses to the challenges of uncer-tainty and ambiguity as part of the management agenda (Commission 2000). Currently, DG IXworks on a priority list of dangerous substances and the application of the precautionary prin-ciple to the regulation of chemicals. This policy shift has been welcomed by some and criti-cized by others. At this point it is not quite clear, what the application of the precautionaryprinciple means for risk communication and information.

Most analysts agree that most consumers are confused in this debate. Consumers demandhealthy and safe products and like to act on the assumption ”better safe than sorry”. This atti-tude is likely to enhance the application of the precautionary principle. At the same time,however, consumers have an interest in a large variety of products, low prices and job oppor-tunities. Unless risk information addresses explicitly aspects of benefits and social needs, itwill likely fail to convince anyone that some residual risks are worth while taking since theyare associated with highly appraised benefits.

Given the political background and the current needs of consumers, this document will ad-dress the following major issues:

– How do people perceive risks from chemicals? How do they evaluate safety and envi-ronmental impacts? Do they make a difference between risk and hazard? What kind ofactions do they demand from the major actors, i.e. industry, regulators, stakeholdergroups?

– What is the role of the media? How do they transport risk information? What can riskcommunicators do to improve their relationships with the media?

– Which tools and approaches have been proven successful in the chemical risk arena?What can risk communicators do to address the needs of the target audiences?

– How can risk communicators build up trust and credibility? What can they do to gainmore trustworthiness in a social environment in which distrust has become more promi-nent?

– What is the most promising procedure to improve stakeholder participation? What needsto be done to ensure a fair and competent discourse among the participants of involve-ment programs?

– How can we evaluate risk communication programs? Which programs habe been provensuccessful, which have been a failure and why?

These questions that also govern the subjects of discussion during the OECD Workshop inBerlin will be the guiding principles of the following subchapters. These subchapters providea brief overview of the research results and a summary of practical implications that followfrom the analysis.

3. HOW DO PEOPLE PERCEIVE RISKS?

3.1 RESEARCH RESULTS

Today’s society provides an abundance of information, much more than any individual candigest. Most information to which the average person is exposed will be ignored. This is not amalicious act but a sheer necessity in order to reduce the amount of information a person canprocess in a given time. Once information has been received, common sense mechanisms pro-cess the information and help the receiver to draw inferences. These processes are called in-tuitive heuristics. They are particularly important for risk perception, since they relate to themechanisms of processing probabilistic information. One example of an intuitive strategy toevaluate risks is to use the mini-max rule for making decisions, a rule that many consumersand people exposed to chemical hazards prefer to apply. This rule implies that people try tominimize post-decisional regret by choosing the option that has the least potential for a disas-

Background Paper 35

ter regardless of probabilities. The use of this rule is not irrational. It has evolved over a longevolution of human behavior as a fairly successful strategy to cope with uncertainty (bettersafe than sorry).

This heuristic rule of thumb is probably the most powerful factor for rejecting or downplayinginformation on chemical risks. If any exposure above zero or above a defined threshold (mi-nus safety factor) is regarded as negative, the simple and intuitively reasonable rule to mini-mize exposure makes perfect sense. Most regulatory regimes are based on this simple ruleranging from the ALARA principle (as low as reasonably achievable) to the application of thebest available control technology (BACT). Such principles imply that any exposure might benegative so that avoidance is the most prudent reaction.

Psychological research has revealed different meanings of risk depending on the context inwhich the term is used. Whereas in the technical sciences the term risk denotes the probabilityof adverse effects, the everyday use of risk has different connotations. With respect to human-induced risks Table 1 illustrates the main semantic images.

Risks from chemical products are mostly to be found in the category of slow agents. This hasfar-reaching implications. Most agents belonging to this category are regarded as potentiallyharmful substances that defy human senses and "poison" people without their knowledge.Risks associated with food additives, air pollutants, water impurities, and other chemicalagents are mostly invisible to the person exposed. They require warning by regulators or sci-entists. Food additives, chemicals or pharmaceuticals are always associated with negative sideeffects. Along with that image people tend to believe that toxicity depends less on the dosethan on the characteristics of the substance. Hence they demand a regulatory approach thatmandates interventions at any level above zero-risk independent of dose-response-relationships.

Most surveys show that people demand zero-risk-levels, at least as the ideal target line.Chemical risks which are characterized by high ubiquity, high persistency and high irreversi-bility (risk class ”Pandora”, see Annex I, Chapter 2) hence trigger responses of avoidance anddesires for strict regulatory prohibitions. The former US food regulations (the so called De-laney clause) reflect this public sentiment. Something that is regarded as truly bad and viciousis almost impossible to link with a positive connotation. The only exception may be the expo-sure to "natural" agents. Most people believe that anything that exists in nature cannot beharmful for people if consumed in modest amounts. That is why alleged natural drugs are as-sociated with fewer or even none negative side effects compared to alleged chemical drugs.

The perceptions of natural toxins as benign reflect the modern impression or myth of "MotherNature" who offers an invaluable set of beneficial resources to humankind in response fortaking good care of her. Chemical compounds, however, are associated with artificiality andseen as threats to human health.

TABLE 1: The four semantic images of risk in public perception

1. Pending Danger– artificial risk source– large catastrophic potential– inequitable risk-benefit distribution– perception of randomness as a threat

2. Slow Agents– (artificial) ingredient in food, water, or air– delayed effects; non-catastrophic– contingent on information rather than experience– quest for risk management intervention above zero-level risk exposure– strong incentive for blame

3. Cost-benefit Ratio– confined to monetary gains and losses– orientation towards variance of distribution rather than

expected value– asymmetry between risks and gains– dominance of probabilistic thinking

4. Avocational Thrill– personal control over degree of risk– personal skills necessary to master danger– voluntary activity– non-catastrophic consequences

In addition to the images that are linked to different risk contexts, the type of risk involvedand its situational characteristics shape individual risk estimations and evaluations. Psycho-metric methods have been employed to explore these qualitative characteristics of risks. Table2 lists the major qualitative characteristics and their influence on risk perception.

Furthermore, the perception of risk is often part of an attitude that a person holds about thecause of the risk, i.e. industrial activity, consumption of food, production method (such asgenetic engineering) and others. Attitudes encompass a series of beliefs about the nature, con-sequences, history, and justifiability of a risk cause. Due to the tendency to avoid cognitivedissonance, i.e. emotional stress caused by conflicting beliefs, most people are inclined toperceive risks as more serious and threatening if the other beliefs contain negative connota-tions and vice versa. Often risk perception is a product of these underlying beliefs rather thanthe cause for these beliefs.

Background Paper 37

TABLE 2: List of important qualitative risk characteristics

Qualitative Characteristics Direction of Influence

1. Personal control increases risk tolerance

2. Institutional control depends on confidence ininstitutional performance

3. Voluntariness increases risk tolerance

4. Familiarity increases risk tolerance

5. Dread decreases risk tolerance

6. Inequitable distribution of depends on individual utility,risks and benefits strong social incentive for rejecting risks

7. Artificiality of risk source amplifies attention to risk,often decreases risk tolerance

8. Blame increases quest for social andpolitical responses

With respect to the qualitative characteristics, one would expect that chemical products areassociated with many of the negative qualitative characteristics. First, most chemicals are as-sociated with negative risk characteristics such as dread, lack of personal control, and artifici-ality. These characteristics make people even more concerned about the negative impacts thanwarranted by the predicted health effects alone. Second, the beliefs associated with the risksource, for example industry, center around greed, profit-seeking and alleged disrespect forpublic health. Fourth, the possibility of consumers being exposed to risks without their con-sent touches upon serious equity concerns if susceptibility to these risks vary considerablyamong individuals or rest on probabilistic balancing.

3.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR RISK COMMUNICATORS

One of the most prominent obstacles towards effective risk communication about chemicalproducts is the intuitive process of risk perception. Regardless whether consumers prefer in-dustrial or environmental values, their cognitive frame is marked by the concept of chemicalsas pollutants and poisons. What does this situation mean for risk communication?

– Risk information should be related to the qualitative characteristics that people associatewith risk. These characteristics include: dread, familiarity, personal or institutional con-trol, perception of fairness in risk-benefit distribution, assignment of blame, and others.It is important to address these concerns rather than focussing on probabilities and mag-

nitude of risk only. Consumers perceive risks of chemical products predominantly undera health perspective; environmental considerations play a role only if they are amplifiedby mass media or induced into the debate through political mobilization. In addition,production methods (such as using methods of genetic engineering) do matter for con-sumers when judging risks and their acceptability.

– Often consumers associate hazards with consumer products and underestimate the de-pendency of effects from dose and circumstances of exposure. If a product contains aningredient, which might be toxic or carcinogenic at a higher dose, most people judge themere presence of this ingredient as sufficient proof for its immanent danger. Since con-sumers have to rely on experts for providing them reliable information on dose-effect-relationships, trust becomes a crucial issue for risk management. In low trust situations,consumers usually demand the absence of known hazards from anything they might beexposed to. As a consequence, trust-building becomes a major task for all communica-tion efforts (see Section 6).

– Any communication program should avoid linking the risk communication effort tovested interests. If risk communication is being perceived as a new strategy of industryto avoid risk reduction measures and to avoid being subjected to the precautionary prin-ciple, the communication program will be rejected by most observers, and there wouldbe little chance for a regulatory reform. Rather risk communication programs shouldstress the potential benefits of a regulatory regime that takes all serious risks into ac-count and that makes sure that the benefits are equally shared by industrialists, environ-mentalists, and the consumers. It needs to be proven that public health is served better ifrisk regulation is based on thorough assessments rather than on suspicions.

Risk communication is particularly difficult for high-consequence low- probability risks,which are associated with involuntariness, dread, lack of control, and unfamiliarity. To ad-dress these negative risk characteristics, it may be helpful to point to functional equivalents ofthese characteristics in a broader societal context. Potential equivalents are the assurance of ademocratic decision-making process to counteract the impression of involuntariness and, as areplacement for personal control, the independence and impartiality of operating and regulat-ing institutions. This may produce trust in their capability to monitor routine emissions, checksafety devices, and intervene if safety of comsumer products is jeopardized. In addition, un-familiarity can partially be compensated by better functional knowledge about the risk and theassociated technology.

Background Paper 39

With respect to the final receiver, risk communication must address the qualitative character-istics of risk and the mechanisms of risk perception. It is not sufficient to confine the commu-nication process to the discussion of probabilities and consequences. Communication shouldinclude aspects such as whether the exposure is voluntary, what possibilities exist to exertpersonal control (or if that is not feasible what institutions can fill that gap and monitor andcontrol risks on behalf of the public), how the risk and its consequences are managed, andhow catastrophic events can be avoided.

Risk communication will not perform any miracles. It can help to overcome some of the per-ception biases that we outlined above and it has the potential to make people more susceptibleto the need for balancing risks and benefits. But it should be up to them and the legitimatepolicy bodies to decide on how to use this new information for policy making and regulation.The ideal target of risk communication is not the person who readily accepts and believes allthe information given, but who processes all the available information to form a well-balancedjudgment in accordance with the factual evidence, the arguments of all sides, and his/her owninterests and preferences.

4. ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MEDIAIN SHAPING RISK PERCEPTION

4.1 REVIEW OF RESEARCH RESULTS

All mechanisms of risk perception are contingent on information derived from either personalexperience, interaction with others or intermediary sources. A vast amount of informationabout risks stems from intermediary sources. People develop attitudes and positions with re-spect to risky technologies and or activities on the basis of second-hand information. Thisinformation is transmitted by the mass media. Many beliefs about risks and risk sources arehence shaped or at least influenced by the information and evaluations that the media transmitto their consumers. The media perform a dual role in the communication process: first, theycollect information from primary sources and process this information by applying profes-sional and institutional rules that govern the selection of received messages and their inter-pretation. Second, they send information to the final receiver.

The transformation process of messages during transmission has been a popular topic ofcommunication research. From a theoretical point of view, many different concepts about thenature of this transformation have been suggested in the literature. The basic differences be-

tween these approaches may be confined to two major questions: First, are the media creatingnew messages or are they reflecting existing messages; second, how biased are journalists intheir coverage vis-a-vis their own social convictions and external pressures? Both questionshave not found a final answer yet.

With respect to the first question, the literature suggested a strong influence of the media onpublic opinion in the early years of communication research. Through extensive testing, how-ever, this hypothesis was later substituted by the hypothesis that the media set the agenda, butdo not change the attitudes or the values of the audience with respect to the issues on theagenda. Only in the long term have media a lasting effect on the attitude and value structure oftheir consumers. With respect to the second question evidence has been gathered to supportalmost all possible viewpoints. Political and commercial pressures have been detected in me-dia coverage as well as courageous news reports in conflict with all vested interests. Culturalbiases within the journalistic community have been found, but also a variety of different po-litical and social attitudes among journalists. Some journalists perceive their job as a meretranslation of events into verbal or visual expressions, while other believe they should play amore active role in shaping and explaining the issue.

In short: the extremes that media are mere reflectors of reality or that they are docile instru-ments of social pressure groups may occasionally be true, but they are not the rule. In reality,the situation is more complex: Media coverage is neither dependent on external pressures noran autonomous subsystem within society. The media reflect internalized individual values,organizational rules and external expectations. It depends on the issue itself, the institutionalcontext and the political salience of the issue, which of these three factors is likely to domi-nate the transformation process. A universal theory of how this transformation takes place istherefore not likely to evolve. Some of the common characteristics of media coverage deservesome attention, however:

– Media construct reality as well as readers construct their understanding of the mediareport. These constructions are results of mental and professional frames that journalistsuse in selecting and coding information. Construction does not imply that the coverageis independent of the real events. But there is ample evidence that the media amplifysome elements and downplay others when processing information. For example, thenumber of fatalities is a rather weak indicator for amount of coverage in risk issues,while the degree of social conflict arising from a risk debate correlates high with mediacoverage.

Background Paper 41

– Media direct their attention to events, not continuous developments. An accident-freeperformance of a technology over many years is not newsworthy, unless it is framed asan event (such as a public celebration). Likewise slow changes of the climate becomehot news issues only if they can be linked to a conference, an exceptional hot summer(such as 1998) or political agreements. Consumers being harmed by chemical productscan be highly amplified in the public media if many consumers feel that the same inci-dent could happen to them. In 1999, a warning by the British Health Board to be awareof thrombosis risks in connection with the third generation of contraceptives lead toenormous overreactions, such as a 25,000 additional abortions and more than ten thou-sand additional teenage pregnancies.

– Media have no internal mechanism to resolve conflicts among experts. Journalists haveneither the time nor the qualification to find out who is right in a scientific debate. Themost frequently used method to handle competing scientific evidence in the media is togive each side room to state or justify claims. Most journalists have lists of people whowill provide counter-statements to any statement that they encounter when working on astory. Neither quality of evidence nor proportionality (with respect to number of dissi-dents or professional qualification) determines the amount of coverage that each sidewill receive. The amount is either equally distributed among camps or biased towardsthe preferences of the journalist or towards the editorial style of the respective medium.Media in a pluralistic society tend to reinforce diversity, dissent, and relativity of values.

Is there any evidence about specific media treatment of risk-related information? The mediacollect information from direct eyewitnesses of hazard events (anecdotal evidence) as well assystematic information from risk management institutions. Displaying anecdotal experience(such as feeling ill or dizzy) contrasts with the statistical evidence provided by risk experts.This contrast reinforces the constructive nature of media coverage and its reception (sameevent through two very different lenses), and often contributes to the erosion of trust in ex-perts (see below). In addition, the nature and the magnitude of the original hazard are only ofminor interest to most journalists. They prefer to focus on the way institutions handle risksand communicate about their activities. The media emphasize hazards that are relatively seri-ous and relatively rare; it is the combination that gives them their punch. For example, theChernobyl accident with 31 acute deaths cases received 129 minutes of CBS News coveragewhile the 1976 Tandshan earthquake leaving 800,000 people dead received less than 9 min-utes on the average TV evening news.

The literature contains endless lists of factors that are assumed to determine the attractivenessof risk-related messages for transmitters, including: technologically induced hazard (versus

natural hazard), possibility to blame someone for the outcome, cultural distance from theplace of occurrence, human interest component, drama and conflict, exclusiveness of cover-age, proximity to politically hot issues, prestige of information source, and degree of conflictamong stakeholders.

Reviewing the abundance of theoretical suggestions and partially confirmed empirical results,one might come to the conclusion that the information processing in the media is almost ran-dom or at least void of any systematic pattern. However, some insights have been gained as aresult of the media studies undertaken so far. The major components of risk studies, prob-abilities and magnitudes, seem to play only a minor role in the media coverage; they are henceattenuated. Intensified, however, are messages relating to conflicts among social groups (as-signing blame), competing claims of evidence, risk events that could have been prevented ormitigated, and the involvement of individuals or organizations with high prestige and politicalinfluence.

Interaction among transmitters, plural input from different sources, the co-existence of per-sonal, professional, and institutional amplification criteria, and interaction among differenttarget audiences create enough complexity and uncertainty that the final effect of the commu-nication process can hardly be measured at all, let alone be effectively controlled. Receptionstudies of media coverage are therefore rare and often very restricted in the experimental de-sign. It is clear, however, that people tend to form opinions and attitudes by a selection proc-ess in which parts of news stories are taken out and rearranged in accordance with personalpreferences, existing attitudes, and values. Media consumers create puzzles constructed bymany elements (cognitive and evaluative) from a variety of media reports. It is not so muchthe intention of the message that consumers take for granted, but their preexisting viewpointthat make them select and interpret the messages. This is why in some experiments individu-als draw different, sometime even opposite conclusions from identical new reports to whichthey were asked to write comments.

Background Paper 43

4.2 LESSONS FOR RISK COMMUNICATORS

With respect to the transmitters, risk communicators should be aware of the major selectionrules of the media. Media report about events, not continuous performance. Hardly any jour-nalist is interested, for example, in writing a story about a long safety record of a hazardouswaste facility. If such a facility, however, faces an accidental release of hazardous material,one can be sure that this event will become headline news. To get a message across, commu-nicators need to link their message to events, not necessarily physical events. Social eventssuch as a celebration of 25 years of safe performance of a chemical factory or a completion ofa scientific study can also meet the event requirement.

Another major characteristic of the media is their interest in eyewitness reports. These testi-monies relate abstract issues or events to unique human experiences (which journalists assumehelp readers to identify with the victims or managers of the risk). Information that emphasizesthe human component and personalizes abstract material is more likely to be accepted by themedia than documents about the sequence of events or organizational competence. However,risk communicators should be aware that "packaging" the information for the purpose ofpleasing the transmitter always faces the risk of creating suspicion and distrust. Transmittersoften associate good packaging with the intent to manipulate the audience. One should neverforget that social stations of information processing are not computers or radios that operateaccording to pre-structured rules, but they constitute thinking beings who reflect the messagesthey receive and change their selection rules to fit the circumstances.

Interaction among transmitters, plural input from different sources, the coexistence of per-sonal, professional, and institutional selection and amplification criteria, and interactionamong different target audiences create enough complexity and uncertainty that the final ef-fect of the communication process can hardly be measured at all, let alone be effectively con-trolled. Even the rather simple step of making a message known to and understood by the tar-get audience faces the chaotic conditions of the communication market. Guidelines and reci-pes to improve risk communication can help to increase the probability that a message willreach its audience, but will never guarantee its success.

5. TOOLS AND APPROACHES TORISK COMMUNICATION

5.1 RESEARCH RESULTS ON RISK DEBATES

After looking at risk perception and the media, this subchapter will focus on the communica-tor and his or her role in the risk communication process. Although topics vary from risksource to risk source, most risk debates center around three themes:

– factual evidence and probabilities;– institutional performance, expertise, and experience;– conflicts about world views and value systems.

The first level involves factual arguments about risk probabilities and the extent of potentialdamage. If the problem is a lack of technical knowledge on the part of the public, proceduresof communication should focus on informing the public with the consensual expert opinions.In this case, communication is equivalent to successful risk information. Two-way-communication is needed only to make sure that the message has been understood and that thetechnical concerns of the audience have all been addressed. One of the main problems of riskcommunication with respect to the first level of risk debates is the issue of framing. Depend-ing on the wording of the questions or the framing of the probabilistic information (for exam-ple: stating probabilities in terms of losses or gains), people will change their preference orderfor decision options with identical outcomes. The effects of framing occur first after the intro-duction of the issue and later when the factual information is compared with the values of therespondents. To avoid confusion about the effects of framing, risk communicators should usethe same framing rationale throughout the information process and enlighten respondentsabout the effects of framing so that they become aware of the ambiguities that are inherent inthe way probabilistic information is presented.

The second, more intense, level concerns institutional competence to deal with chemical risks.At this level the focus of the debate is on the distribution of risks and benefits, and the trust-worthiness of the risk management institutions. This type of debate does not rely on technicalexpertise, although reducing scientific uncertainty may help. Risk communication on the sec-ond level requires evidence that the risk managers have met their official mandate and thattheir performance match public expectations. In a complex and multifaceted society such evi-dence is difficult to provide.

Gaining trust requires a continuous dialogue between risk managers, stakeholders, and repre-sentatives of the public. The chemical industry‘s program on "responsible care" may serve an

Background Paper 45

example for such a dialogue. The participants express their position on aspects such as emer-gency planning or accident management, they exchange interpretations about the currentsituation or future threats and work on mutually acceptable means to improve existing riskmanagement practices. In such dialogues, trust can be gained by showing that the risk man-agement institution has been and continues to be competent, effective, and open to public de-mands. Instruments such as citizen advisory committees, joint risk managing boards, or insti-tutionalized exchange of risk-related information have been proven effective in facilitating adialogue on the second level of risk debates.

At the third level the conflict is defined along different social values, cultural lifestyles, andtheir impact on risk management. In this case, neither technical expertise nor institutionalcompetence and openness are adequate conditions for public involvement. Decision makinghere requires a fundamental consensus on the issues that underlie the risk debate. This impliesthat the communication requirements of the first and second level, i.e. risk information or in-volvement in a two-way dialogue, are insufficient to find a solution that is acceptable to all ormost parties. Third level conflicts require dialogue-based models of communication, such asmediation processes, citizen panels, or consensus conferencing.

As long as value issues remain unresolved, even the best technical expertise and the most pro-found competence cannot overcome social, cultural, and political value conflicts. Further-more, knowledge, values, and worldviews are not independent from each other. Many groupshave constructed a coherent body of beliefs that integrate cognitive, evaluative and normativeclaims about the world. These belief systems can form epistemic communities, which offer acomplete, often holistic view of the world and define the legitimate realm of rules for evalu-ating claims of evidence. Once such a belief system is established, it is almost immune againstany type of counterclaims. The only path to agreement will be through the creation of mutualgains for all parties (win-win-situation) or the generation of overarching values that areevoked or generated through dialogue-based sessions. Both resolution strategies require thatthe value issues are taken as the starting point of discourse and not the level of factual knowl-edge. This strategy does not guarantee a resolution of conflict. Many value conflicts that ariseon the third level of conflict cannot be resolved at all. In such a case collectively binding deci-sions rely on compromises or majority votes rather than consensus.

There is a strong tendency for risk management agencies to re-frame higher level conflictsinto lower levels ones: third level conflicts are presented as first or second level conflicts, andsecond level conflicts as first level. This is an attempt to focus the discussion on technicalevidence, in which the risk management agency is fluent. Stakeholders who participate in the

discourse are thus forced to use first level (factual) arguments to rationalize their value con-cerns.


The selection of tools and approaches strongly depend on the level of the risk debate that thecommunicator wants to address. If the problem is located on the first level, i.e. the informationneeds are centered around technical information, the best tools are:

– Brochures that are well tested with the target audience;– information videos or Internet presentations (again tested for comprehensibility and at-

tractiveness);– direct lectures or learning experiences (hands-on experiments, evening school, consumer

training, etc,).

The effectiveness of these tools depends on the ability of the target audience to understand andcomprehend the information and the motivation of the target group to commit time and effortinto consuming the information. Motivation can be enhanced if the learning experience is or-ganized as a dialogue. If people can voice their concerns, they are more inclined to engage inmutual learning.

If the problem is located on the second level, these tools and approaches do not suffice. Insti-tutional performance and trustworthiness demand additional means of communication.Among them are:

– Inspection tours of facilities;– face-to-face meeting between skeptics of the organization and organization leaders;– open book procedures (no secrecy, no hidden agendas);– data link of environmental performance values from a company to environmental groups

(so they can see the performance):– inclusion of skeptical stakeholder in an advisory board or expert committee.

The tools and approaches of the second level are geared towards gaining confidence in thesincerity and honesty of the risk communication effort. The normal means of communication(paper, pictures, and multimedia) are necessary but insufficient conditions for a successfulcommunication effort. Level II risk problems require personal and authentic efforts to demon-strate commitment and trustworthiness. This is rather difficult in consumer affairs because thetarget audience is widely dispersed and the originators of the risk may be difficult to identify. In these

Background Paper 47

circumstances, prominent members of the industrial or regulatory community need to take the re-sponsibility and invest their personal credibility in the risk communication program.

If the problem is located on the third level, values and lifestyles are the main issues of com-munication. This level demands instruments and tools that are directed towards discourse andtwo-way-dialogue. Among them are:

– Round Tables with representatives of different stakeholder groups;– mediation, arbitration or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms;– direct citizen participation through advisory boards, panels, juries, etc.;– involvement in governmental programs for priority setting and regulatory actions;– participation in public debates and open forums.

The idea behind third level debates is to find a common understanding of the goals and vi-sions for the future development of industry, society and social affairs. Consumer protection isone element in this larger framework of social concerns ranging from social justice to societalresponsibility for personal growth and well-being. Regulatory agencies as well as industrialrepresentatives are expected to participate in such debates as this is part of the legitimizingefforts of social forces in a plural society. At the same time, issues of risk-taking and risk tol-erance demand discourse-based activities that provide reassurance to each actor that all viewsare taken into account and that provide sufficient incentives for reaching common grounds oreven a common consensus.

6. TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS ANDINFORMATION SOURCES


With the advent of ever more complex technologies and the progression of scientific methodsto detect even smallest quantities of harmful substances, personal experience of risk has beenmore and more replaced by information about risks and individual control over risk by insti-tutional risk management. As a consequence, people rely more than ever on the credibility andsincerity of those from whom they receive information about risk. Thus, trust in institutionalperformance has been a major key for risk responses. Trust in control institutions is able tocompensate for even a negative risk perception and distrust may lead people to oppose riskseven when they are perceived as small.

Trust can be substructured in five components. These five components are listed and ex-plained in Table 3.

TABLE 3: Components of trust

Components Description

Perceived competence degree of technical expertise in meeting institutional mandate

Objectivity lack of biases in information and performance as perceivedby others

Fairness acknowledgment and adequate representation of all relevantpoints of view

Consistency predictability of arguments and behavior based on past experience and previous communication efforts

Sincerity honesty and openness

Faith perception of "good will" in performance and communication

Trust relies on all five components, but a lack of compliance in one attribute can be compen-sated for by a surplus of goal attainment in another attribute. If objectivity or disinterestednessis impossible to accomplish, fairness of the message and faith in the good intention of thesource may serve as substitutes. Competence may also be compensated by faith and viceversa. Consistency is not always essential in gaining trust, but persistent inconsistencies de-stroy the common expectations and role models for behavioral responses. Trust cannot evolveif people experience inconsistent responses from others in similar or even identical situations

Trust on a personal level is a subjective exception that a person will refrain from behavioraloptions that may harm the trusting person. Trust necessarily entails risk-taking, but, in contrastto the scientific endeavor of predicting the probability of identified outcomes, trust impliesthat the selection of options is left to the entrusted person or institution. Due to the perceivedcompetency and honesty of the entrusted entity, one does not need to bother with assessing theoutcomes of actions and with controlling the decision making process of that entity. Thissaves time and effort.

In risk debates issues of trust evolve around institutions and their representatives. People'sresponses to risk depend, among others, on their confidence that they have in risk initiatingand controlling institutions. Since the notion of risk implies that random events may triggeraccidents or losses, risk management institutions are always forced to legitimate their actionor inaction when faced with an accident. On one hand they can cover up mismanagement byreferring to the alleged randomness of the event (labeling it as unpredictable or an act of God),

Background Paper 49

on the other hand they may be blamed for events for which they could not possibly provideprotective actions in advance.

The stochastic nature of risk demands trustful relationships between risk managers and riskbearers, since single events do not prove nor disprove management failures; at the same timethey provoke suspicion and doubt. The slightest mistake by a risk management agency can besufficient to destroy the delicate balance of trust. The handling of risk by private corporationsand governmental agencies has been crucial for explaining the mobilization rate of individualsfor taking actions. The more individuals believe that risks are not properly handled (in addi-tion to being perceived as serious threats) the higher is the likelihood that people will be po-litically active. It has been shown that in the nuclear case the disillusionment of the US-population with the nuclear option as well as the number of people becoming political advo-cates of antinuclear policies grew simultaneously with the growing distrust in the nuclearregulatory agency. Negative attitudes are a necessary but by far not a sufficient reason for be-havioral responses. Public confidence in institutional performance is another and even moreimportant element in triggering behavioral responses.


What kind of advice can we give to risk communicators of how to design and implement arisk communication program that incorporates the findings of past research on trust and credi-bility and includes the more anecdotal evidence of risk communication efforts in the past?Using the popular distinction between message, person, institution, and social climate, onecan develop a set of conditions and prerequisites for gaining trust in communicating with thepublic, in particular the customers of chemical products. These refer to preconditions for riskcommunication and provide orientations for analyzing and designing communication pro-grams:

a) To improve the trust in a message, we recommend explaining the rationale of risk analy-sis and its role for risk management so that the audience is better prepared as to what toexpect. In addition, the decision making process and the past record of the institutionshould be included in the message so that people can assign competence to the actors andget a better feeling of the trade-offs that had to be made in meeting the specific risk man-agement task. Evidence of competence, fairness towards other viewpoints, and referencesto commonly shared values and beliefs will make a message more attractive and couldhelp to address the centrally and peripherally interested audience at the same time. Con-

clusions should be made explicit and vested interests should not only be admitted, butjustified in terms of public mandate or economic function.

b) To improve trust in a personal communicator, the major goal is to develop a communi-cation climate that enables the audience to identify with the communicator and to sharehis or her experiences and beliefs. The more a communicator manages to avoid the maskof an institutional spokesperson and the more he or she can express compassion and em-pathy for the audience, the more likely the audience will identify with the speaker and feelcompelled to the arguments. As noted previously, conveying probabilistic information is areal challenge, but can be done in reference to everyday experience of budget constraintsand consumer products. Furthermore, evidence of successful use of risk analyses in haz-ard management can serve as demonstration to define the role and limitations of riskanalysis in improving public health and the environment. Reference should be made tocommonly shared symbols, appealing formats, and to previous performance record ofopenness and honesty. One should definitely avoid negative labeling of potential oppo-nents or typical advertising gimmicks

c) To improve the credibility of an institution, the vital factor is performance, not publicrelations. Confidence has to be gained by meeting the institutional goals and objectives.In addition, credibility is linked to the evidence of being cost-effective and open to publicdemands. These two goals are often in conflict with each other, however, they have to betreated as complementary, and not as substitutional, goals. Fairness and flexibility aremajor elements of openness. In addition to assuring sufficient external control and super-vision, public participation may be implemented as a means to demonstrate the compli-ance with the political mandate and to avoid the impression of hidden agendas. On thepremise of good performance, communication programs can be designed that they reflectthese accomplishments. Such programs should provide honest, complete, and accurate in-formation that is responsive to the needs and demands of the prospective audience. Thiscan only be done if the source engages in an organized effort to collect feedback from theaudience and establish a two-way communication process. Involvement of citizens, openhouse policies, discussion forums, open TV channels, or other means should be exploredto assure the functioning of the two-way communication structure.

d) To improve the social climate is not within the realm of possibilities for a single commu-nicator. But large-scale organizations or association of organizations can affect the overallclimate. One way to improve the climate is to accept and even endorse checks and bal-ances in the control of the organization. The other obvious solution is to demonstrate theflexibility and foresight of the organization in meeting and anticipating new public claims

Background Paper 51

and values. The impersonal nature of institutions may be mitigated by providing speciallocal services and by engaging in community activities and programs. Governmental in-stitutions will receive more credibility if they do not leave the impression of permanentcrisis management, but of competence and preparedness for long-term threats and chal-lenges (in particular pertaining to environment and technology).

These general remarks can be transferred to the situation of regulatory agencies within theOECD countries. If these regulatory agencies want to reach a situation where confidence isplaced in the efficiency and effectiveness of their actions, they will have to fulfill some pre-conditions, which determine their prospective role in risk communication. Among them are:

– Perceived expert knowledge: As a rule, expert authority is perceived in connection withsuccessfully carried out tasks (e.g., correct prognoses, successful crisis management,congruence of institutionally proclaimed objectives and their realization). In cases wheresuccess is hard to assess, peripheral patterns of evaluation become important. Then, thereputation of the institution and its members and their status in the political frameworkserve as an orientation for an assessment of expert knowledge. At this point, a conflictsituation might arise for the chemical risk agencies: They rank relatively low in the po-litical hierarchy so as not to raise too high expectations regarding its efficiency; but ahigh status within the system of institutions will be of particular advantage for acquiringa better visibility and reputation. This conflict could, for instance, be resolved by thefact that the agency appoints an advisory board with highly prominent individuals whohelp to bring the agency more in the focus of public attention.

– Perceived objectivity: As long as there are criteria according to which the truth of state-ments can easily be proved or disproved, there is no difficulty in perceiving objectivity.In complex situations, people again rely on peripheral indicators. They often substitutefairness for objectivity. Then, the institution is thought to be objective if its proposalsare situated in the center between extreme demands of groups. This interpretation ofobjectivity will become problematic for regulating agencies if this 'mean value' is notcongruent with the scientifically ascertained truth. The perception of objectivity can beimproved by independence of the information source, reputation of the experts, and bytaking social groups into deliberation processes in which each claim has to be justifiedand defended.

– Perceived fairness: The readiness of an institution to examine, without reservation, allrelevant points of view in the course of the decision process, does not mean that itsjudgment has to result in the 'mean value' of all opinions from different parties (although

this is often seen as the indicator of a fair solution). What is important is rather thereadiness of the institution to accept concerns and claims of all relevant groups and tointegrate them into the judgment process. For this reason, it is recommendable that eachagency gives the substantiated impression of a fair consideration of all aspects put for-ward by relevant groups, by means of hearings and other procedures of participation.

– Predictability: With similar facts and boundary conditions, institutions should reachequal results, independent of actors and points of time. Such a continuity of formation ofjudgment, and hence of accomplishment of functions, increases credibility. On a meta-level, predictability creates confidence in the system in a positive sense, on the institu-tional level it decreases the need of control as a kind of organized distrust. The basis ofpredictability is the consent of the participating persons to voluntarily comply with pro-cedural and decision rules, which are acknowledged as rational and reasonable. Suchpredictability is achieved by binding agencies to certain procedural and decision rules.

– Expediency: If a certain institution is considered to be necessary for accomplishing asocially important function, it will also meet with the corresponding confidence. Manyagencies have particular problems in this respect, since they seem to be of no relevancein the public eye. Thus, it will be important to point out that its expediency goes beyondthe so far established institutional procedures in risk-related or environmental policy. Anobjectivation alone will probably not suffice as basis for a legitimation here. Rather, theintegrative character of the decision process within the agency and its position as a "sci-entific clearing house" will have to be emphasized towards the public (that is whystakeholder participation is quite important).

Without credibility, governmental agencies to regulate chemical risks will not play any role inestablishing reasonable standards, whatever institutional form they will have. Credibility is theproduct of a complex structure of influences, among which efficiency is the most importantcomponent, and perceived expert knowledge, objectivity, fairness, predictability and expedi-ency determine public reputation. Successful communication begins before imparting infor-mation; it creates the institutional and structural preconditions for information and resultingrecommendations to be accepted.

Background Paper 53

7. COPING WITH RISK: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT


There is a need for a structure or organizational model for involving stakeholders in the riskdebates and provide a platform for different interest groups to voice their preferences andwishes with respect to desired regulations and the appropriate handling of chemical risks.Most authors agree that such a debate should be organized according to the rules of a rationaldiscourse. The phrase "discourse" has different meanings in the social sciences. Discourse isoften used to mean either language texts as wholes in their context of use or the world-viewswhich inform our understanding. In the theory of communicative action the term discoursedenotes a special form of a dialogue in which all affected parties have equal rights and dutiesto present claims and test their validity in a context free of social or political domination.Within the context of risk communication, a discourse provides a platform to resolve a con-flict or engage in joint problem solving by a specific set of rules. The success or failure of adiscourse depends on many factors. Among the most influential are:

(1) A clear mandate for the discourse participants: Participation of stakeholders requires aclear and unambiguous mandate of what the deliberation process should produce or de-liver. Since discourses are informal instruments, there should be a clear understandingthat the results of such a discourse cannot claim any legally binding validity (unless it ispart of a legal process such as arbitration). All the participants, however, should begin thediscourse process with a clear statement that specifies their obligations or promises ofvoluntary compliance once an agreement has been reached. As a pre-decisional tool theresults of such discourses should be regarded as consultancy reports similar to the scien-tific consultants who articulate technical recommendations to the legitimate authorities.Risk managers from the public or private sector need to acknowledge and to process theoutcome of the deliberations, even if they are not obliged by law to follow the recom-mendations. However, the process will fail its purpose if deviations from the recommen-dations are neither explained nor justified to the discourse participants.

(2) Openness of result: Discourses will never accomplish their goal if the decision has beenmade (officially or secretly) and the purpose of the communication effort is to "sell" thisdecision to the other parties. Individuals have a good sense whether a decision-maker isreally interested in their point of view or if the process is meant to pacify potential pro-testers.

(3) A clear understanding of the options and permissible outcomes of such a process: Theworld cannot be reinvented by a discourse nor can historically made decisions be deliber-ately reversed. All participants should be clearly informed about the ranges and limits ofthe decision options that are open for discussion and implementation. If for example, thetechnology is already in existence, the discourse can only focus on issues such as emis-sion control, monitoring, emergency management or compensation. But the range of per-missible options should be large enough to provide a real choice situation to the partici-pants.

(4) A predefined time table: It is necessary to allocate sufficient time for all the deliberations,but a clear schedule including deadlines is required to make the discourse effective andproduct-oriented.

(5) Equal position of all parties: A discourse needs the climate of a "powerless" environ-ment. This does not mean that every party has the same right to intervene or claim a legalobligation to be involved in the political decision making process. However, the internalrules of the discourse have to be strictly egalitarian; every participant must have the samestatus in the group and the same rights to speak, make proposals, or evaluate options.Two requirements must be met: First, the decision about the procedure and the agendamust rely on consensus; every party needs to agree. Second, the rules adopted for the dis-course are binding for all members and no party is allowed to claim any privileged statusor decision power. The external validity of the discourse results are, however, subject toall legal and political rules that are in effect for the topic in question.

(6) Neutrality of the facilitator of the discourse: The mediator who facilitates such a processshould be neutral in his/her position on the respective risk management issue and re-spected and authorized by all participants. Any attempt to restrict the maneuverability ofthe mediator should be strictly avoided.

There are also discourse requirements pertaining to the behavior of the participants that arenecessary for facilitating agreement or at least a productive discussion. Among these require-ments are:

(7) Willingness to learn: All parties have to be ready to learn from each other. This does notnecessarily imply that they have to be willing to change their preferences or attitudes.Conflicts can be reconciled on the basis that parties accept other parties' position as a le-gitimate claim without giving up their own point of view.

Background Paper 55

(8) Resolution of allegedly irrational responses: Discourses, in which the public interestgroups or affected individuals are represented, frequently demonstrate a conflict betweentwo contrasting modes of evidence: The public refers to anecdotal and personal evidencemixed with emotional reactions, whereas the professionals play out their systematic andgeneralized evidence based on abstract knowledge. A dialogue between these two modesare rarely accomplished because experts regard the personal evidence as a typical re-sponse of irrationality. The public representatives perceive the experts often as uncom-passionate technocrats who know all the statistics, but couldn't care less about a single lifelost. This conflict can only be resolved if both parties are willing to accept the rationale ofthe other party's position and to understand and maybe even empathize with the other'sparty view. If over the duration of the discourse some familiarity with the process andmutual trust among the participants have been established, role playing can facilitate thatunderstanding. Resolving alleged irrationalities means to discover the hidden rationalityin the argument of the other party.

(9) De-moralization of positions and parties: The individuals involved in a discourse shouldagree in advance to refrain from moralizing each other or each other's position. Moraljudgments on positions or persons impede compromise. Something cannot be 30 % goodand 70 % bad; either it is good, bad, or indifferent. As soon as parties start to moralizepositions, they cannot make tradeoffs between their allegedly moral position and the otherparties' immoral position without losing face. A second undesired result of moralizing isthe violation of the equality principle stated above. Nobody can assign equal status to aparty, which is allegedly morally inferior. Finally, moralizing masks deficits of knowl-edge and arguments. Even if somebody knows nothing about a subject or has only weakarguments to support his/her position, assigning blame to other actors and making it amoral issue can help to win points. The absence of moralizing other parties or their posi-tion does not mean to refrain from using ethical arguments, such as "this solution does notseem fair to the future generation" or "we should conserve this ecosystem for its ownsake". Ethical arguments are essential for resolving environmental disputes.


What advice can we give to risk communicators of how to design and implement a risk com-munication program that incorporates the findings of past research on stakeholder involve-ment? The first lesson is to distinguish among the three levels of the debate as mentionedabove. Nothing is more detrimental and frustrating for all participants involved than address-ing an audience who expects a third level debate and is confronted with a detailed technical

analysis of the issue. The risk communicator should investigate the level of debate beforehandand design different communication programs for each level. When organizing arenas forstakeholder involvement, several criteria should be met. Among those criteria are:

a) Variability of options: Do the participants have the choice to select one option out of avariety of options that are all feasible in the specific situation? This is particularly impor-tant, if government agencies organize involvement processes, as the participants expectseveral options from which they are allowed to choose. If the purpose is only to convey amessage or to improve understanding among the constituencies, stakeholder participationvia discourse is not the right format.

b) Equity of exposure: Are all stakeholders or the respective constituency exposed in someway to the potential disadvantages of the proposed options? (so to avoid a distinctionbetween affected and indifferent stakeholders). If stakeholders are invited to participate,they should have an equal interest in the matter. Otherwise, people will question the le-gitimacy of peripheral stakeholders to be present at the discourse table.

c) Personal experience: Do participants have some experience with the problem and do theyfeel competent to give recommendations after they are further educated about the problemand the remedial options? This is particular relevant if consumer issues are at stake. Par-ticipating stakeholders should be knowledgeable about major consumer issues and have abasic understanding of chemical risk management.

d) Personal relevance. Do participants judge the problem as serious enough to sacrifice theirtime to work on solutions? It might be frustrating for a governmental agency to invitestakeholders to a common problem-solving discourse, but most of the invitees do notshow up. The organizers have to make sure that all relevant stakeholders have an interestin and a commitment to the process.

e) Seriousness and openness of agency: Is the managerial level of the inviting agency will-ing to accept or at least carefully consider the recommendations of the discourse or doess/he pursue hidden agendas? Often, agency personal responsible for risk communicationare enthusiastic about stakeholder involvement, this enthusiasm is, however, not sharedby the upper management. Again, it is very frustrating for all participants, if the recom-mendations are not taken seriously by the decision-makers.

The objective of this section was to address and discuss the role of stakeholder involvementfor risk management. The mere desires to initiate a two-way-communication process and the

Background Paper 57

willingness to listen to public concerns are nor sufficient. Discursive processes need a struc-ture that assures the integration of technical expertise, regulatory requirements, and publicvalues. These different inputs should be combined in such a fashion that they contribute to thedeliberation process the type of expertise and knowledge that can claim legitimacy within arational decision making procedure. It does not make sense to replace technical expertise withvague public perceptions nor is it justified to have the experts insert their own value judg-ments into what ought to be a democratic process. These arguments have motivated the recentU.S. Panel on Risk Characterization to advocate an "analytic-deliberative approach” by whichexpertise and deliberations are systematically linked with each other. The transformation ofthe risk arena into a cooperative risk discourse seems to be an essential and ultimately inevita-ble step to improve risk policies and risk communication. The ideal target of risk communica-tion is not the person who readily accepts and believes all the information given, but who pro-cesses all the available information to form a well-balanced judgment in accordance with thefactual evidence, the arguments of all sides, and his/her own interests and preferences.

8. EVALUATING RISK COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNS


Risk communication campaigns are dealing with important objectives: human safety, healthand sometimes even survival may be at stake, as well as social relations between customers,regulators, and providers of chemicals. Consequently it is crucial that pertinent risk communi-cation activities actually achieve their goals. To provide evidence for this, empirical evalua-tion research is indispensable. "Evaluation" means the scientific assessment of the content,process and effects (consequences, outcomes, impacts) of an intervention (measure, strategy,program) and their assessment according to defined criteria (goals, objectives, values). Sys-tematic empirical investigations are required in order to prove the effectiveness of risk com-munication – simple experience is not sufficient. There are both substantive and methodologi-cal reasons for evaluation studies:

– It is a matter of responsibility to check whether risk information and hazard preparednessefforts are successful and sufficient.

– Evaluation results can demonstrate not only whether but also why a program works (ornot) and thus guide the improvement of risk communication (RC).

– Intuitive assessments of the program's effectiveness can easily fail because of wrongcause-effect attributions (spurious causality).

– Evaluation provides an empirical basis for a decision between alternate RC programs.

– As campaigns are laborious and usually rather expensive (in terms of costs, personnel andtime), evaluation can help to justify the efforts.

Existing evaluation studies differ considerably in their approach; the main options for a re-searcher are summarized in Table 4.

The most important decision is which aspect of a risk communication program one intends toevaluate. There are three principal perspectives: Content-orientation (i.e., input and messageevaluation), process-orientation (i.e., formative evaluation), and outcome-orientation (i.e.,impact evaluation). In each case advanced research designs are required, usually a longitudinalstudy, possibly including control groups. Evaluative data can be gathered in an analytical as-sessment done by experts or in an empirical investigation in which relevant participants aresurveyed. Evaluations may be designed ”in-house” or (preferably) conducted by external re-searchers. It is important that the principal decision about an evaluation study is made beforethe campaign is conducted, and that the conceptualization of program assessments is embed-ded in the risk communication plan.

TABLE 4: Evaluation of risk communication basic considerations

Focus of evaluation: – content-oriented (substantive correctness) and/or – process-oriented (formative/developmental view) a/o – outcome-oriented (summative effectiveness)

Study design: – longitudinal before/after study – control group (not exposed to the intervention)

Information sources: – risk information/communication targets (receivers) – sender/author/agency

Type of criterion: – knowledge & competence gain– change of attitudes & mind-sets– risk-reducing behavior– joint conflict resolution

Reference for comparisons: – normative program goals (as stated by institution) – previous situation

– alternative information/communication strategies

Table 5 shows the steps of a typical planning process and locates risk communication evalua-tion within the course of action.

Background Paper 59

TABLE 5: Steps of a risk communication program

– Hazard identification/specification

– Clarification of responsibilities within organization– Identification of exposed people, areas etc (according to various scenarios)– Identification of relevant parties, 'actors', institutions/individuals) to be involved– Analysis of information necessities/needs

– Explication of the objectives of the RC program– Critical assessment of resources– Selection of the target audience(s)– Determination of the RC content– Selection of communication means & channels

– Designing message format & layout– Check of substantive correctness of information to be disseminated– Pre-examination of comprehensibility and credibility

– Principal decision about conducting empirical evaluation research– Survey and documentation of "before" situation

Implementing/conducting the RC program

– Monitoring the RC process & context factors– Evaluation of effectiveness with respect to stated RC objectives– Identification of implications for future risk management– Revision of the RC program

Once the objectives of a particular risk communication campaign have been stated by thoseresponsible for the program, an evaluator needs to operationalize them and investigatewhether or not they have been achieved.

"Effectiveness" as the overall criterion has to be explicated by characteristics of the content,process and outcomes of the risk communication program employed as well as by proceduralcriteria (i.e. financial efficiency, training needs for the personnel involved). Even if contentand process of the program meet their respective objectives, achieving the intended effectscannot be guaranteed. Sufficient information dissemination and reception by the defined targetgroup are preconditions for being effective. But a good program should then actually improvethe receiver's comprehension, knowledge, problem awareness and involvement, and eventu-ally change beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. In this context it is relevant whether the recipientsdevelop sufficient confidence in the information source and accept the message. Thus in-creased trust in authorities needs to be considered as well.

All criteria must be defined in advance (prior to the execution of the program) and be measur-able before and after the intervention in order to allow for quantitative comparisons. Other-wise a theoretically sound and valid evaluation of the observed effects will be difficult. Em-pirically evaluating the impact of risk communication programs requires careful conceptual

planning and proper research designs. Approaches too simple are not appropriate in the rathercomplex case of risk communication.


Evaluation of risk communication is crucial for the measurement of success or failure. Riskcommunicators are well advised to have an evaluation program at hand before they launch arisk communication program. The empirical analysis of the effects and side-effects of com-munication will help them to redesign the communication process over time and to improvetheir communication efforts.

With respect to the study design for evaluation of risk communication programs, crucial is-sues include: the specification of target populations (representing all relevant parties in thecommunication process), a longitudinal design, appropriate timing of data collections and theinclusion of control groups. There are two focal issues of causality to be considered: (1) toshow that intended effects are actually induced by the intervention under examination (and notother concurring extraneous influences); and (2) to clarify whether unintended impacts arecaused by the program. In a wider perspective, the researcher needs to explicate whether con-clusions about the content, process and outcomes of the RC campaign are valid beyond thespecific circumstances and participants of the study. Table 6 gives a list of main points to beconsidered in this regard.

TABLE 6: Critical considerations for planning risk communication evaluations

– Base the conceptualization of an evaluation on a risk communication model– Integrate evaluation research early into the risk communication campaign– Use rigorous 'state-of-the-art' methodology– Employ an interdisciplinary research team– Collect data from several sources (including experts and lay-people)– Carefully distinguish between attitudinal and behavioral outcomes– Investigate and analyze reasons for success and for failure– Check for intended and unintended effects of a campaign– Consider differences among cultural/ethnic subgroups in the target population– Assess the stability of effects over time– Reflect alternative explanations for effects– Strive for the dissemination and utilization of findings

Finally, since evaluation research is useless if ignored, the comprehensive dissemination offindings is also critical – especially as evaluation results are the best means to improve hazard

Background Paper 61

information and communication programs. In fact, evaluation research should be an integralpart of any serious risk communication campaign.

9. CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this background paper was to review the current knowledge about risk com-munication with respect to chemical products for consumer use, to present the empirical evi-dence with respect to the effectiveness of risk communication, and to delineate some practicalguidelines for risk communicators based on psychological or sociological research.

Almost all risk communication studies have one message in common: Risk communication isnot a public relations problem. Advertisement and packaging of messages can help to improverisk communication, but they will be insufficient to overcome the problems of public distrustin risk management institutions and to cope with the incapability of the present risk arena toproduce rational and consistent risk policies. The potential remedies to these two problems liein a better performance of all institutions dealing with or regulating risks and in a re-structuringof the risk debate to meet the requirements of two-way communication process.

With respect to performance, it is well understood that many risk management institutionscomplain that their specific task is not well understood and that public expectations do notmatch the mandate or the scope of management options available to these institutions. This iscertainly not unique for risk management agencies. Lipset and Schneider (1983) found outthat elites in America complain regularly about the ignorance and misconceptions of the pub-lic with respect to their mandate and performance. Regardless of whether this claim is true,there is a clear gap between the self-perception of most institutions and the public perceptionof these institutions. This is specifically prevalent in the risk arena because the issue at stake,health and environment, tops the concerns of the public of all OECD countries and becausethe stochastic nature of risk impedes an unambiguous evaluation of management success orfailure. In addition, chemical products are often associated with artificial ingredients thatcause suspicion and fear.

In spite of these difficulties, careful management, openness to public demands, and continu-ous effort to communicate are important conditions for gaining trustworthiness and compe-tence. They cannot guarantee the success, but they make success more probable. Therefore,the first major lesson of risk communication is to start with a critical review of one's ownperformance. Is the performance good enough to justify public trust? Are mechanisms in

place that help to discern the needs and requests of stakeholders and the general public? Is atwo-way communication program implemented? Is the communication honest, clear, compre-hensive, and timely?

If these questions can be positively answered, the designing of communication can be opti-mized. The second major lesson of risk communication is to tailor communication accordingto the needs of the targeted audience and not to the needs of the information source. Provid-ing information that people request is always more effective than providing answers to ques-tions that nobody has asked. Most of the guidelines in Part III specify the premises and condi-tions for a receiver-focused communication program.

The third major lesson of communication is to adjust and modify one's communication pro-gram as a result of an organized effort to collect feedback and to sense changes in values andpreferences. Many successful programs of the past have turned out inappropriate to addressthe audience of today. Constant adjustment requires efforts to collect systematic feedbackfrom the community, the relevant stakeholders, and the general public. This calls for a con-tinuous evaluation program.

By carefully reviewing in-house performance, by tailoring the content of the communicationto the needs of the final receivers, and by adjusting the messages to the changes in values andpreferences, risk communication can convey a basic understanding for the choices and con-straints of risk management and thus create the foundations for trustworthy relationship be-tween the communicator and the audience. Although many receivers of risk information maynot agree with the actual decisions institutions have made in setting priorities or selectingmanagement options, they may realize that these decisions are results of open discussions andthe assignment of painful but reasonable trade-offs.

Even if all these suggestions are followed, risk communication may not work. External influ-ences, the overall climate of distrust, management failures in the past, and specific incidentscan transform risk communication into a never-ending frustration. This frustration -so familiarto most risk managers- is an indication of the need for a more fundamental risk discourse.Such a discourse can help to resolve the fundamental choices with respect to basic values andpreferred lifestyle, i.e., the contents of a third level debate, as described in Section 5 of thispaper.

Before the third level issues are not adequately addressed, all communication on the secondand first level will fail or succeed only temporarily. The ideal target of risk communication isnot the person who readily accepts and believes all the information given, but who processes

Background Paper 63

all the available information to form a well-balanced judgment in accordance with the factualevidence, the arguments of all sides, and his/her own interests and preferences. To accomplishthis goal, a risk communication effort is needed to provide the necessary qualifications to allparticipants and empower them to be equal partners in making decisions about risk. The ulti-mate goal of risk communication is reconciliation of expertise, rational management strategiesand public preferences.

PART III

ORIENTATIONS

Risk Communication for Chemical Product Risks – An OECD Background Paper2

“State of the Art” Report on Risk Communication3

PRACTICAL ORIENTATIONS FOR SUCCESSFULRISK COMMUNICATION

On the basis of risk perception and risk communication studies, several authors have alreadydeveloped guidelines for designing and evaluating risk communication (Covello et al. 1986;Keeney and von Winterfeldt 1986; Zimmerman 1987a; Covello and Allan 1988; Kaspersonand Palmlund 1988; Renn 1988; 1992; Hance et al. 1988; National Research Council 1989;Chess et al. 1998). These orientations are not all substantiated by empirical research; they relyto a large extent on common sense, expert judgment, and personal experience. They provide,however, some useful criteria for developing an effective and consistent information andcommunication program.

The suggestions listed below will be practical conclusions from the theoretical and empiricalresults described in the background paper (particularly in Annex I). They might include somecommon sense reasoning, but each suggestion is linked to one of the theoretical concepts dis-cussed in the literature. The compiled suggestions should not be regarded as recipes, but asnormative information of what to take into account when approaching the public with risk-related information. Social interaction is too complex for designing "fool-proof" guidelines.Different hazards and risks demand different approaches. But the most important reservationis that the best communication process will not lead to any success if it is meant to compen-sate shortcomings or failures in the task performance of the communicator or to hide man-agement mistakes.

1. Be clear about your intentions and make them the central message of your communicationeffort. As obvious as this may sound, many risk information attempts are clear violationsof this principle. Many agencies are forced to react before they have made up their mindabout an issue. Sometimes different units of a single organization voice different opinionsand the text of the information constitutes a poor compromise between the diverse view-points. If a fast reaction is required, the message of the first response may be that there isstill too much uncertainty about risk to produce sound judgments and that the institutionneeds more time to assess the data. Although this message may not be very attractive, itstill is better than pretending to have a degree of certainty which is unjustified and mayneed correction later. Clarity and unequivocal position are two major conditions to passthe attention filter of the respected audience.

2. Simplify your message as drastically as you think you can do without being inaccurate.Messages will be simplified regardless how well written the text may be. Rather than havethe transmitters and final receivers simplify the text their way, the sender may perform a


more accurate simplification which is also in accordance with his/her original intentions.Simplification is a very delicate job and needs careful editing and re-editing. Factual in-formation should be made as simple as possible, but information about the decision proc-ess, the values that were used to make trade-offs, and the remaining uncertainty should notbe omitted, as this information is crucial for building credibility and trust.

3. Place your simple messages in the beginning of a text and gradually add the complex is-sues. Although simplicity is a virtue for the whole information process, it is advisable tostart with the simple and easily understandable messages and add more complex and de-tailed information at the end. This structuring of the information serves two purposes:gaining the attention of the peripherally interested audience and at the same time pleasingthe well-educated audience which expects detailed argumentation and sufficient evidence.The only way to please both audiences (aside from splitting the information) is to to givethe general information first and add the specifics later.

4. Anticipate the interests of your target audiences and design your communication programto match their needs. This guideline is the most often violated rule in risk communication.Experts in institutions have the irresistible tendency to package a whole education pro-gram in each attempt to communicate with the public. But most people have neither thedesire nor the time to become nuclear engineers, immune system specialists, or experts onradon. Most people want to know the consequences of a risk, the circumstances of its oc-currence, the possibilities to mitigate the risk, and the management efforts by the respec-tive institutions. Depending on the desired level of the risk debate, the communicationshould focus on the scientific evidence, the management record of the institution, or theworld views and philosophies that govern the institutional performance.

5. Devise different communication programs for different target audiences. In addition tostructuring texts, a communication program can operate with different packages contain-ing the same message, but using different channels for transmission. A message to the na-tional wire services should contain only the basic facts and some general conclusions, apress release to daily newspaper may also incorporate some discussion of the results, an-ecdotal evidence if suitable and reference to actual events (otherwise it will not pass theselection filters of these transmitters). Manuscripts for science supplements in newspapersor specialized journals should be more problem oriented and offer a novel or interestingperspective in the analysis of the issue.

6. Messages should be distributed on different channels and feedback communication shouldbe stimulated and encouraged as much as possible. A good communication program


should not only address different audiences by using different transmitters, but should alsotake advantage of the different available channels. Press releases are one major mediumfor communication, but press conferences, participation in talk shows, appearance inhearings and public events, letters to the publisher, and direct mailings are often comple-mentary ways of conveying a message. Press conferences and talk shows allow immediatefeedback from the transmitter so that the information can be better tailored to the needs ofthe receiver. Sending out brochures with reply envelopes is another method of collectinginformation about the communication needs of the public and bypassing the transmitters.Models for public involvement have been proposed and tested to assure constant feedbackfrom the risk bearers or bystanders. In addition, monitoring the process of re-coding(through content analysis of media messages) and of receiver's responses (through evalu-ating letters to the editor or direct survey methods) provide valuable information about thecomprehensibility of the original information and its effects on the receiver.

7. Be honest, complete, and responsive in the composition of your message. Honesty is avital condition for gaining credibility. Honesty will not automatically be rewarded, butdishonesty will certainly create negative repercussions among transmitters and final re-ceivers. The same effect will take place when sources withhold relevant information or tellonly one side of the story. The goals of honesty and completeness include another, oftenoverlooked aspect. Institutions with vested interests should put their cards on the table andjustify their position. Credibility is often assigned by speculating about the true motives ofthe source. If profits or other vested interests are obvious motives, it is better to addressthese issues and make clear that such interests do not automatically preclude public inter-est or the common good. Industries could for example make the argument that companieswith a good risk reduction and control program are more likely to attract better qualifiedpersonnel, to enhance their corporate reputation, and to avoid costly litigation.

8. Try to escape from role expectations by using a personal approach and by framing thecommunication to the personal experience of the addressed receiver. Receivers, in par-ticular peripherally interested persons, are inclined to select information that contains sur-prises or unexpected insights. Even if the material of the message does not offer anythingnew, a communicator can attract attention by avoiding the stereotypes of his or her roleand by personalizing the message. This is particularly effective in face-to-face interac-tions, press conferences or talk shows. Without denying their home institution, communi-cators may report about their personal feelings when they first heard about the risk sourceand what kind of actions they took to protect themselves. They even may convey their ownfeelings and show compassion for the anxieties and fears of the addressed audienceshowing his respect for their rationality. In addition, avoiding role stereotypes confronts


the audience with some cognitive dissonance which may be resolved by accepting the newmessage. To be honest is an absolute condition for such an attempt because most peoplehave developed a good sensitivity for acting and displaying fake feelings.

9. Allocate enough time for packaging your message, but do not change your message inorder to make the package more attractive. The packaging of the message is important forthe success of the communication effort. A good package implies that the formal require-ments for a news story are met and that the message contains the relevant clues that areattractive to your target audience. But packages are not ends in themselves. If the messagehas been simplified and tailored to the needs of the receiver, it should not be further com-promised by adjusting it to the most attractive package. This is the major difference com-pared to advertisement where people do not expect truthful information, but entertainingpersuasion. Risk communication is based on different expectations: most receivers expecthonest, clear, and complete information. This kind of information may generate trust in thecommunicating institution. People do not mind if advertisement for margarine is enter-taining or even silly, but they expect information on risks to be honest and serious.

10. Be careful in selecting the right cues for appealing to the peripheral audience withoutoffending your central audience. Peripheral cues should be confined to commonly sharedsymbols, appealing formats, and surprises in openness and honesty. They should definitelyavoid negative labeling of potential opponents or typical advertising gimmicks. Peripheralcues are important for successful communication, but they have to be selected carefully toplease the peripherally and centrally interested audience alike.

11. Explain the risk rationale to your audience and demonstrate the logic and adequacy ofthis rationality without claiming superiority. Explaining the rationale of risk analysis andits role for risk management prepares the audience to acknowledge the basic principles ofrisk management decisions. The decision making process and the past record of the insti-tution should also be included in the message so that people can assign competence to theactors and get a better feeling of the trade-offs that had to be made in meeting the specificobjective. Evidence of competence, fairness towards other viewpoints, and references tocommonly shared values and beliefs will make a message more attractive and could helpto address the centrally and peripherally interested audience at the same time. Conveyingprobabilistic information is a real challenge, but can be done in reference to everyday ex-perience of budget constraints and consumer products. Furthermore, evidence of success-ful use of risk analyses in hazard management can serve as demonstration to define therole and limitations of risk analysis in improving public health and the environment.


12. Place risk in social context and report numerical probabilities only in conjunction withverbal equivalents. The functioning of the intuitive heuristics and biases in processingprobabilistic information mandates a verbal explanation of numerical probabilities sincemost people have difficulties in understanding the meaning of probabilities and tend to fo-cus on the maximum perceivable consequences. This verbal explanation should attempt toput risk in perspective to other risks. Risk comparisons often create confusion and arelikely to be rejected by the audience if they do not match the receivers' perception of com-parable risks. Therefore a few rules for using these comparisons are appropriate:

– Risk comparison should rely only on risks that are perceived as comparable by thepublic. Risks with identical benefits are certainly better suited to risk comparisonsthan risks with divergent benefits. It has also been suggested to base comparisons onthe situation with and without the cause of risk or include only risks that lead to anidentical set of consequences. But the major point is the purpose of risk comparison.Comparisons should only serve the purpose of illustrating the meaning of abstractprobabilities. Risk comparisons for the purpose of suggesting judgments about ac-ceptability should be avoided because they are neither logically defensible nor con-vincing in the eyes of the public.

– Risk communication must address the basic qualitative properties of different risksand explain how deficiencies in those qualities have been compensated or will becompensated.

– It may be useful to insert anecdotal evidence or report about identifiable victimswhen communicating about familiar and unspectacular risks, such as radon or highblood pressure. Attention is almost assured if the receivers perceive the risk as a po-tential threat to themselves or their primary group. Dramatic, unfamiliar, and tech-nological risks with high catastrophic potential are likely to be overestimated. In-stead of emphasizing the low probability of severe accidents, communication shouldfocus on the technical and organizational structures (such as the multi-barrier systemor redundancy in safety devices) to prevent such accidents and demonstrate the pre-paredness of the community in the unlikely, but not impossible, event of an accident.

– It seems advisable to link numerical probabilities with verbal expressions of likeli-hood or risk comparisons. The perception of probabilities is characterized by somany biases that it is almost impossible to convey their meaning in risk analysis andrisk management to a larger audience. Still they should be mentioned because theyare the most accurate indicators for the relative seriousness of the risk, thus a vital


component of all risk policies. In addition, the more interested and well-educatedaudience demands such information and will suspect an attempt to hide relevantfacts if the numerical data is withheld.

13. Institutional performance is the major key to trust and credibility. The more you can dem-onstrate that you did a good job the more you can expect trust in your message. Confi-dence has to be gained by meeting the institutional goals and objectives. Credibility islinked to the evidence of being cost-effective and open to public demands. These twogoals are often in conflict with each other, but they have to be treated as complimentary,and not as substitutional goals. Fairness and flexibility are major elements of openness. Inaddition to assuring sufficient external control and supervision, public participation maybe implemented as a means to demonstrate the compliance with the political mandate andto avoid the impression of hidden agendas. On the premise of good performance, commu-nication programs can be designed that reflect these accomplishments.

14. Risk managers have to learn from the public as much as the public can learn from them:Risk communication has to address public expectations and public knowledge about therisk management rationale first before it can deal with actual management results and be-fore it can ask for trust in the management effort. Such an educating approach is only ac-ceptable to most people if the education process is mutual and if the essence of publicconcerns is adequately addressed. Two-way communication is clearly a prerequisite ofsuccessful information campaigns, but it is often hard to implement and requires flexibilityand the willingness to adapt to public concerns on the side of the communicating institu-tion.

15. You can only convince the receivers of your message if it addresses their concerns andinterests. Try to investigate in advance on what level the risk communication will occur. Ifpublic concerns are focussed on technical issues (first level), your message should containmainly factual evidence. Communicators on this level should be technical experts. Youshould be aware, however, that many risk debates appear to be on the first level, but theunderlying conflict is about issues of the second (trust in institutional performance) orthird level (societal values and worldviews). A debate on the second level has to addressthe institutional qualifications and the past performance record for risk management. Thedesired communicators here are the institutional policy makers or risk managers. Risk de-bates on the third level require a consensus building exercise focussing on values and fun-damental policy directions. Most institutions will have problems to conduct such exer-cises; a political facilitator or mediator may be needed to initiate a discourse aimed at aconsensus building.


16. Encourage or initiate attempts to conduct a rational discourse, in particular for thirdlevel debates. Rational discourses are one of the very few means to overcome conflicts onthe third debate level. They are also useful in second level debates, if institutional per-formance and management capabilities are uncertain and controversial. They require care-ful planning and preparation and rely on the willingness of the communicator to learnfrom the participants and to adjust his/her preferences if deemed necessary. Several proce-dures lend themselves to organizing a discourse, such as public hearings, mandatory par-ticipation requirements, or conflict mediation processes. However, it is not so much thestructure of the process that determines the success or failure of a risk discourse than thewillingness of all participants to meet the conditions of adequate time allocation, opennessof the process, willingness to learn, acceptance of different rationalities, and de-moralization of positions.

These guidelines should not be regarded as recipes, but as normative suggestions of what totake into account when approaching the public with risk-related information. Social interac-tion is too complex for designing "fool-prove" guidelines. Different hazards and risks demanddifferent approaches. But the most important reservation is that the best communication proc-ess will not lead to any success if it is meant to compensate shortcomings or failures in thetask performance of the communicator or to hide management mistakes.

Risk Communicationfor

Chemical Product RisksAn OECD

Background Paper

- ANNEX -

"State oft the Art" Report on Risk Communication 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNEX I: “STATE OF THE ART” REPORT ON RISK COMMUNICATION1. Definition and Objectives of Risk Communication ....................................... 72. The WBGU Risk Classification........................................................................ 83. Research Insights from Risk Communication Studies ............................... 134. References ............................................................................................... 81

ANNEX II: RISK COMMUNICATION RESOURCE BOOK1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 952. Risk Communication Manuals .................................................................... 1003. Case Studies................................................................................................. 1474. Major International Programmes on Risk Communication ...................... 1595. Addresses and Internet Sites ...................................................................... 1616. Abbreviations................................................................................................ 1697 References.................................................................................................... 170

ANNEX III: REPORT FOR THE OECD –RESULTS OF THE STUDY ON RISK COMMUNICATION

1. Background ..................................... 12. Purpose of the Study...................... 178

3. Presentation of the Results ........... 1794.Major Conclusionsfrom the Study 184

ANNEX IV: Selected Bibliography.................................................................................. 191 Authors.......................................................................................................... 207


ANNEX I

“STATE OF THE ART”REPORT ON RISK COMMUNICATION

Ortwin Renn and Hans Kastenholz

1. Definition and Objectives of Risk Communication ................................. 7

2. The WBGU Risk Classification ................................................................. 8

3. Research insights from Risk Communication Studies......................... 13

3.1 Understanding Risk Messages: The Social and

Psychological Context of Risk Communication.................................... 13

3.1.1 Introduction: The Source-Message-Receiver Model............................. 13

3.1.2 The Sources of Messages....................................................................... 15

3.1.3 The Primary Sources of Risk Communication ...................................... 17

3.1.4 Social Amplification of Risk in Message Formation ............................. 19

3.1.5 The Secondary Sources of Risk Communication ................................. 22

3.1.6 Role of Transmitters in Communication................................................ 23


3.1.7 The Transmitters of Information on Risks ............................................. 24

3.1.8 The Recievers: Risk Perception Mechanisms....................................... 26

3.1.9 Lessons to Improve the Understanding of Risk Information ............... 33


3.2 Risk Communication as a Process of

Establishing Trust and Credibility.......................................................... 35

3.2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 35

3.2.2 Levels of Trust.......................................................................................... 37

3.2.3 A Review of Sociological Studies on Trust ........................................... 41

3.2.4 The Social Context of Risk Communication.......................................... 43

3.2.5 Lessons for Risk Communicators.......................................................... 44

3.3 Risk Communication as Persuasion:

The Route to Attitude and Behavioral Changes .................................... 46

3.3.1 Review of Psychological Research ........................................................ 46

3.3.2 The Elaboration Likelihood Model.......................................................... 49

3.3.3 A Modification of the Elaboration-Likelihood Model............................. 51

3.3.4 Attitudes and Behavior ............................................................................ 55

3.3.5 Lessons for Risk Communication .......................................................... 56

3.4 Conditions for Successful Stakeholder Involvement ........................... 57

3.4.1 A General Introduction into this Field of Research............................... 57

3.4.2 The Political Arena of Risk...................................................................... 58

3.4.3 The Three Levels of Risk Debates.......................................................... 63

3.4.4 Coping with Risk: Requirements of a Rational Discourse ................... 66

3.4.5 The Model of Cooperative Discourse ..................................................... 69

3.4.6 Experiences with the Cooperative Discourse Model ............................ 73

3.4.7 Implementation of a Cooperative Discourse ......................................... 77

3.4.8 Lessons for Stakeholder Involvement ................................................... 78

4. References................................................................................................ 81


1. DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVESOF RISK COMMUNICATION

What is risk communication? After reviewing several suggestions, the definition of risk com-munication by Covello, von Winterfeldt, and Slovic seems to be the most appropriate for thebackground paper:

"Risk communication is defined as any purposeful exchange of informationabout health or environmental risks between interested parties. More specifi-cally, risk communication is the act of conveying or transmitting informationbetween parties about (a) levels of health or environmental risks; (b) the signifi-cance or meaning of health or environmental risks; or (c) decisions, actions, orpolicies aimed at managing or controlling health or environmental risks. Inter-ested parties include government agencies, corporations and industry groups,unions, the media, scientists, professional organizations, public interest groups,and individual citizens" (Covello, von Winterfeldt, and Slovic 1986, p. 172).

Thus risk communications fits into classic concepts of communications as a purposeful ex-change of information between actors in society based on shared meanings (DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach 1982, pp. 133). Purpose is required to distinguish the sending of a message fromnoise in the communication channel. The term "message" implies that the informer intends toexpose the target audience to a system of meaningful signals, which in turn may change theirperception of the issue or their image of the sender. Acoustic signals without any meaning donot constitute communication.

If one accepts the premise, that risk communication implies an intentional transfer of infor-mation, one must specify what kind of intentions and goals are associated with most riskcommunication efforts. The literature offers different sets of objectives for risk communica-tion, usually centered on a risk management agency as the communicator and groups of thepublic as target audiences (Covello, von Winterfeldt, and Slovic 1986, p. 172; Zimmerman1987a, pp. 131/132; Kasperson and Palmlund 1988; National Research Council 1989). For thepurpose of the background paper, the variety of objectives can be collapsed into four generalcategories (cf. Zimmerman 1987a, p. 131; National Research Council 1989):

(1) to make sure that all receivers of the message are able and capable of understanding anddecoding the meaning of the messages sent to them;


(2) to establish a trustful relationship between the sender and the receiver of risk communi-cation

(3) to persuade the receivers of the message to change their attitudes or their behavior withrespect to a specific cause or class of risk (for example: workers‘ protection, consumerbehavior);

(4) to provide the conditions for an effective stakeholder involvement on risk issues so thatall affected parties can take part in a conflict-resolution process.

The four main sections of the “state of the art” report will be organized according to these fourobjectives. Each section introduces major theoretical issues, presents empirical results relatedto the discussed objective, and articulates some conclusions for risk communication.

2. THE WBGU RISK CLASSIFICATION

Many risk communication needs are the same or similar among a large range of risk types.The German Council on Global Environmental Change (WBGU) has proposed to classifyrisks according to eight criteria (WBGU 1999, pp.44). These criteria include:– Damage potential, i.e. the amount of damage that the hazard can cause;– probability of occurrence, i.e. the likelihood that a specific damage will occur;– incertitude, i.e., the remaining uncertainties that are not covered by the assessment of

probabilities (subdivided in statistical uncertainties, genuine uncertainty, and ignorance);– ubiquity which defines the geographical dispersion of potential damages (intra-

generational justice);– persistency which defines the temporal extension of potential damages (inter-generational

justice);– irreversibility which describes the impossible restoration of the situation to the state be-

fore the damage occurred (possible restoration are e.g. reforestation and cleaning of wa-ter);

– delay effects which characterize the time of latency between the initial event and the ac-tual impact of damage. The time of latency could be of physical, chemical or biologicalnature and


– potential of mobilization which is understood as violation of individual, social or culturalinterests and values generating social conflicts and psychological reactions by affectedpeople.

Theoretically a huge number of risk types can be constructed by combining the eight criteria.Such a huge number of cases would not be useful for the purpose to develop a comprehensiverisk classification. In reality, some criteria are tightly coupled together and other combinationsare certainly theoretically possible, but there are not any or only few empirical examples. An-swering the question of risk priority, risks with several extreme qualities play a special role.The Council has chosen a classification where single risks are classified as risk types in whichthey particularly reach or exceed one of the possible extreme qualities. This classification isderived from the Greek mythology (WBGU 1999, pp. 58).

– Risk type "Sword of Damocles"According to the Greek mythology Damocles was invited for a banquet by his king. Atthe table he had to sit under a sharp sword hanging on a wafer-thin thread. Chance andrisk are tightly linked up for Damocles and the Sword of Damocles became a symbol for athreatening danger in luck. The myth does not tell about a snapping of the thread with itsfatal consequences. The threat rather comes from the possibility that a fatal event couldoccur for Damocles every time even if the probability is low. Accordingly, this risk typerelates to risk sources that have very high potentials of damages and at the same time verylow probability of occurrence. Many technological risks belong to this category.

– Risk type "Cyclops"The Ancient Greek knew enormous strong giants who were punished despite theirstrength by only having a single eye. They were called Cyclops. With only one eye onlyone side of reality and no dimensional perspective can be perceived. Concerning risks it isonly possible to ascertain either the probability of occurrence or the extent of damagewhile the other side remains uncertain. In the risk type Cyclop the probability of occur-rence is largely uncertain whereas the maximum damage can be determined. Some naturalevents like floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and El Nino, but also the appearanceof AIDS belong to this category as long as it does not exist any or only contradictory in-formation.

– Risk type "Pythia"The Greeks of the antiquity asked their oracles in cases of uncertainty. The most known isthe oracle of Delphi with the blind prophetess Pythia. Pythia‘s prophecies were howeverambiguous. It certainly became clear that a great danger could threaten, but the probabil-


ity of occurrence, the extent of damage, the allocation and the way of the damage re-mained uncertain. Human interventions in ecosystems, technical innovations in biotech-nology and the greenhouse effect belong to this risk type where the extent of changes isstill not predictable.

– Risk type "Pandora‘s box"The old Greeks explained many evils and complaints with the myth of Pandora‘s box — abox which was sent to the beautiful Pandora by the king of the gods Zeus. It only con-tained many evils and complaints. As long as the evils and complaints stayed in the box,no damage at all had to be feared. However, when the box was opened, all evils and com-plaints were released which than irreversibly, persistently and ubiquitously struck theearth. This risk type is characterized by both uncertainty in the criteria probability of oc-currence and extent of damage (only presumptions) and high persistency. Here, ozone-destroying substances can be quoted as examples.

– Risk type "Cassandra"Cassandra was a prophetess of the Troys who certainly predicted correctly the victory ofthe Greeks, but her compatriots did not take her seriously. The risk type Cassandra de-scribes a paradox: the probability of occurrence as well as the extent of damage areknown but it hardly emerges dismay in the present because the damages will occur after along time. Of course risks of the type Cassandra are only interesting if the potential ofdamage and the probability of occurrence are relatively high. That‘s why this type is lyingin the intolerable area (area of permission). A high degree of the delay effect is typical,i.e. a long period between the initial event and the impact of the damage. An example ofthis effect is the anthropogenic climate change.

– Risk type "Medusa"The ancient mythology tells that Medusa was one of three snake-haired sisters of the Gor-gon whose appearance turns the beholder to stone. Similar to the Gorgon who spread fearand horror as an imaginary mythical figure some new phenomena have an effect on mod-ern people. Some innovations are rejected although they are hardly assessed scientificallyas threat. Such phenomena have a high potential of mobilization in public. Medusa wasthe only sister who was mortal — if we transfer the picture to risk policy — Medusa canbe combated by rational arguments, further research and clarification in public. Accordingto the best knowledge of risk experts, risks of this type are lying in the normal area. Be-cause of specific characteristics these risk sources frighten people and lead to heavy re-fusal of acceptance. Often a large number of people are affected by these risks but harm-


ful consequences cannot statistically proved obviously. A typical example would be elec-tromagnetic fields.

TABLE 1: Risk types, criteria and examples (WBGU 1999, p. 11)p signifies the probability of occurrence and d the extent of damage

Type 1 Sword ofDamocles

p low (towards 0);d high (towards infinite);confidence intervals of p and d low

nuclear energy, chemical plants,dams, meteorite impacts

Type 2 Cyclop p uncertain;d high;confidence interval of p high;confidence interval of d rather low

floods, earthquakes, volcaniceruptions, AIDS, El Nino, massdevelopments of anthropogeni-cly affected species

Type 3 Pythia p uncertain;d uncertain (potentially high);confidence intervals of p and d high;

increasing greenhouse effect,endocrine effective substances,release and spread of transgeneplants, BSE

Type 4 Pandora‘sbox

p uncertain;d uncertain (only presumptions);confidence intervals of p and d un-certain (unclear);persistency high (several generations)

ozone destroying substances

Type 5 Cassandra p rather high;d rather high;confidence interval of p rather high;confidence interval of d rather low;delay effect high

anthropogenic climate changefor vulnerable areas

Type 6 Medusa p rather low;d rather low (exposition high);confidence interval of p rather high;confidence interval of d rather low;potential of mobilization high

electromagnetic fields

For each of the six risk classes special risk management strategies were developed (Klinkeund Renn 2000). Three different management regimes were distinguished: classic risk man-agement (dealing with risk avoidance and reduction): uncertainty management (dealing withprecautionary measures and warning systems); and ambiguity management (dealing withmeasures to deal with conflicts among experts and between experts and social groups). Thetwo risk classes Damocles and Cyclops require mainly risk-based management strategies, therisk classes Pythia and Pandora demand a prudent application of the precautionary principle,and the risk classes Cassandra and Medusa necessitate discursive strategies for consciousness-and confidence-building. This distinction does not mean that within each risk class the otherstrategies and instruments have no place, but they take a "back seat" (Klinke and Renn 1999).


What does that entail for the analysis and management of chemical risks? Under which cate-gory do they belong? If the probabilities and the potential damage are well known, the risksmay either be acceptable without any need for further reduction or they are large enough sothat regulatory actions needs to be taken. In both cases, the remaining uncertainties are notlarge and the other properties of the risk do not warrant any increased attention. Risk commu-nication in both cases would demand routine methods of informing potential users about thecorrect way of handling the product. More attention is necessary if any of the main propertiesof the risk are quite uncertain or if the exposure to the specific risk is ubiquitous and irreversi-ble. Then the risk would be best subsumed under the risk class of Pythia or Pandora. In addi-tion, even a small objective risk can be amplified by the public or the media (Medusa). Forthese three risk classes specific risk communication strategies are necessary.

The “state of the art” report will address these various risk communication strategies anddevelop orientations for industry, regulators and consumers to handle the risk communicationprocess in accordance with the requirements of the specific risk class under question and thepossibilities that each of the two actors have available.


3. RESEARCH INSIGHTS FROMRISK COMMUNICATION STUDIES

3.1 UNDERSTANDING RISK MESSAGES: THE SOCIAL ANDPSYCHOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF RISK COMMUNICATION

3.1.1 INTRODUCTION: THE SOURCE-MESSAGE-RECEIVER MODEL

The traditional approach to study and analyze risk communication is based on the communi-cation model of information transfer among sources, transmitters, and final receivers. Al-though the model was originally developed in the late 1940s (Shannon and Weaver 1949;Lasswell 1948), it is still the most prevalent framework for communication studies up to dateand has been recommended by risk managers (Thomas 1987). In a comprehensive review of31 communication textbooks, P.J. Schoemaker concluded that nearly half of the books usedthe Shannon and Weaver model (Shoemaker 1987, p.120). Another approach was the transac-tional view that emphasizes the creation of shared meaning among senders and receivers. Bothapproaches can obviously be combined.

Sources Transmitters Receivers

BehavioralResponse

Basic Communication Model

Reports on Actions PoliticalActions

CommunicationFeedback

CommunicationFeedback

Fig 1: Source-Transmitter-Receiver-Model


Figure 1 illustrates the classic sender-receiver model. A message is composed by the commu-nication source and then sent to a transmitter. The transmitter decodes the message and re-codes it again for its target audience. The new message is then forwarded to the final receiverwho decodes the message and deciphers its meaning. The receiver may respond to the mes-sage by sending out his/her own message either to the original sender or to other constituents.S/he may also feel compelled to take direct actions in response to the message(s) received.The original source may collect or process the receivers' responses. Feedback messages maypass through a transmitter station before they reach the original sender. The original messagesand even more so the feed-back messages are distorted with background noise when they aresent through several channels via transmitters and signal amplifiers (see Renn 1991 for andetailed discussion of the signal amplifying process).

The sender-receiver model has drawn fire for promoting a mechanistic understanding ofcommunication and for emphasizing a one-way communication route (Otway and Wynne1989; Kasperson and Stallen 1991). Yet if the model is used only as a sequential illustration ofthe transfer of messages from one party to another and if the roles of sources and receivers canbe mutually exchanged, it can serve as a powerful tool in the analysis of communication proc-esses. It is a structuring tool to illustrate the communication process, and not an empiricalmodel of how communication is factually organized in a society.

Figure 2 shows the major actors of risk communication as embedded into the classical com-munication model. Sources for risk-related information are basically scientists or scientificinstitutions, public agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), inter-est groups such as industries or environmentalists, and in the case of hazardous events (physi-cal changes caused by hazardous activities) eyewitnesses. These primary sources code infor-mation in form of reports, press releases, or personal interviews and send them to transmittersor occasionally directly to the final receivers (Renn 1988, p. 101ff).

The second step of communication is the coding and re-coding procedure at the transmittingstations. The media, other public institutions, interest groups, and opinion leaders are potentialtransmitters for risk-related information. A press release from EPA may stimulate industry tohold a press conference or to write an open letter to the agency. Interaction among socialgroups, in particular among adversaries, often takes place through the media and not via directcommunication. The goal is to mobilize public support and to initiate public pressure (Peters1984, pp.304; Peters 1990).


Feedback Feedback

Receivers

GeneralPublic

TargetedAudience

GroupMembers

ExposedIndividuals

Transmitters

MassMedia

PublicInstitutions

InterestGroups

OpinionLeaders

Sources

ScienceCommunities

PublicAgencies

InterestGroups

Eye-witnesses

Reports

PressReleases

PressReleases

PersonalInteraction

News &Comment-

aries

Brochures

News-letter

PersonalInteraction

Fig 2: Organizational structure of risk communication

The last step is the processing of the re-coded messages at the receiver. Again, it is helpful todistinguish between different types of receivers. The media usually serve the general public,but many journals are targeted to specific audiences within the general public. Specializedjournals tend to be either appealing to professional standards (science communities, businesscircles, risk assessors), leisure activities (culture, sports, travelling etc), or value groups (envi-ronmentalists, religious groups, political camps etc). The information will be framed for eachaudience in a different manner to assure their attention and to please their expectations.

3.1.2 THE SOURCES OF MESSAGES

The first stage of communication is the framing of a message by an information source. AsH.P. Peters has pointed out, topics can be brought and sustained on the public agenda only ifthe mass media report about the topic and a social institution or group adopts the topic as partof its own agenda (Peters 1986, p.9).


Indoor radon is a good example. In spite of good relationships with the national press, JoelNobel, a physician of Philadelphia, who detected a concentration of 55 Pico-Curie per liter(nearly 14 times the benchmark of 4 Pico-Curie per liter often regarded as "safe' level) in hisprivate home in 1981, was unable to gain more than cursory attention of public institutionsand the press because he could not interest an agency or social group to share his concern(Mazur 1987, p. 89). Not before the State of Pennsylvania, alarmed by another even moredramatic case in 1985, acknowledged the problem and initiated a state-wide survey programdid the national press cover the topic in length and trigger more attention of federal agencies,such as EPA (Mazur 1987, p.90; Fisher 1987, p. 27-28).

In addition to the social support a message receives, the components of the message them-selves play a vital role for the effectiveness of the communication effort. Among the mostimportant are symbols and metaphors, which trigger attention of potential receivers and shapethe decoding process (Hovland 1948, pp. 371; Kasperson et al. 1988). If for example the in-formation source is described as a group of Nobel laureates, the content of the message maywell command public attention. Messages from such sources may successfully pass throughthe selection filters of the transmitters and receivers and be viewed as credible. A press releaseby the nuclear industry, by contrast, may command much less credibility unless other aspectsof the message compensate doubts about the impartiality of the source.

Sources or transmitters can amplify the different components of the message by taking ad-vantage of the symbolic connotations. Assume an industrial spokesperson provides the infor-mation that a specific chemical substance has been leaking from a waste repository for twoyears. One journalist may portray this incident by using phrases such as "leak in waste dis-posal at a high-tech-park" or "state-of-the-art technology for monitoring emissions“. Anotherjournalist may describe the same incident by using phrases such as "air pollution by toxicwaste dump" and "poisoning the air we breath and the water we drink".

The following subsections will deal with each of the three major communication stationsseparately. The focus will be on the roles and functions of sources, transmitters, and receiversin coping with risk information. The special circumstances of risk communication are illus-trated in Figure 3, which serves as a basic guide for the verbal explanations in the followingsubsections.


3.1.3 THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF RISK COMMUNICATION

Nature and technology are both sources of hazardous events, such as earthquakes, fires, explo-sions, pollution, or radiation. Scientific analyses attempt to determine the physical impact ofsuch events (accident analyses) or to hypothesize about the magnitude and the probability ofpotential impacts (risk analyses). Observation and analysis of actual events and simulation ofpotential events lead to an estimate of the magnitude of the impacts, the probability of theiroccurrence, and the distribution of these impacts over time, space, and population subgroups(Rowe 1977). These estimates are coded in the language that the target group, usually otherscientists or regulators, use for communication.

IndividualReceivers

PhysicalImpacts

RiskAnalysis

SocialReceivers

Fig 3: Signal flow model for risk communiation

Eyewit-nesses

Trans-mitters

Physical Signals

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

PoliticalActions

CommunicationExchange

HazardEvent

Hazard

PotentialImpacts

AccidentAnalysis

RiskManagers

= is related to = signal perception

= weak signal = strong signal


In the risk field as in many other scientific areas, mathematical expressions and special jargondominate the professional communication process. Such a specialized language is not --asmany observers have speculated-- a tool to keep outsiders from entering the elite communityof scientists, but serves a valuable function by providing a common and precise meaning of allexpressions used within the community. The inner scientific communication process is usu-ally not meant to convey information to the public, but to transmit messages to peers. How-ever, in a plural society, such messages are screened by public interest groups and professionaltransmitters for "hidden" messages (Peters 1990). One of the consequences of this mismatchbetween intention and availability is the wariness of experts of sharing information with non-scientists and the distrust of many public groups toward the scientific community (Lipset andSchneider 1983).

In addition to the problem of shared meaning of messages between an expert community andoutside observers, the communication process is further complicated by the difference in as-signing importance to different segments of events or pieces of information. Each physicalevent is a source for millions of signals that an observer can collect and process. The collec-tion, however, is necessarily selective and subjective. If two witness the same event, such as acar accident, seldom do their reports match. The selection of what types of signals are col-lected from a physical event or are created by a hypothetical simulation of hazardous eventsinvolves individual or group judgments about relative importance. The scientific conventionto restrict one's attention to probabilities and magnitude reflects a special strategy, i.e., to ab-stract and deduct the typical and universal characteristics from a unique event as a means forcomparing this event with other similar events or designing measures for reducing the risk offuture similar events (Peters 1990, p. 13).

Scientific risk assessment constitutes a deliberate selection of signals that, based on past expe-rience, provide information about the relative potential of hazardous events to produce ad-verse effects. Events, such as earthquakes or chemical spills, are scanned for signals that pro-vide the data to construct probability distributions of adverse effects. Other signals about hu-man sufferings, responsibility for the disaster, inequities in the experience of risk, and politi-cal implications are deliberately excluded from the signal collection process (Dietz et al.1989).

A parallel signal selection and transformation process of an event occurs in the perception ofdirect eyewitnesses or affected persons. These individuals produce anecdotal evidence of thehazardous event (Keeney and von Winterfeldt 1986). This evidence is coded in another lan-guage consisting of elements with a different signal value. Here one encounters expressionsfor personal anxieties and fear, courage and heroism of individuals, anger and blame, compas-


sion and charity. Anecdotal evidence competes with the systematic and abstract evidence pro-vided by scientists. Both forms of evidence stem from the identical physical phenomena, butthey differ in the selection of signals from that event and their mental processing. The lan-guage used by both groups to describe the event and its consequences are reflections of differ-ent clusters of shared meaning (Rayner 1987). These reflections are governed by culturalnorms and values that characterize the self-image and world-view of different groups or soci-ety as a whole. The search for human involvement, be it in form of exceptionally brave be-havior or blame for the culprits, characterizes the common cultural sensitivity of the contem-porary Western societies for an activist perspective. This world-view implies that human in-terventions are capable of preventing, mitigating or aggravating any type of disaster. Othercultures or predecessors of modern western cultures have perceived disaster frequently assigns of inevitable fate or God's punishment and have searched accordingly for signs of col-lective sins rather than individual faults (Renn 1984, p. 13ff).

The selection process is part of the cultural process of constructing reality. Social construc-tions harmonize the mental models of the world with the actual observations (Dietz et al.1989; Seiderberg 1986). The deliberate, axiomatic nature of the selection rules holds true forthe scientific community as well as for any other social group. For example, the scientificconvention of assigning equal weight to probability and magnitude in risk equations is a "non-scientific" value judgment that can neither be derived from purely logical reasoning nor em-pirical evidence (Haefele et al. 1990). Primary sources therefore collect and select signalsfrom the physical world, re-code them into verbal expressions according to their mental mod-els and assign them different degrees of significance and often symbolic value. Some proper-ties of the risk situation may evoke special attention, while others may easily be ignored orattenuated.

3.1.4 SOCIAL AMPLIFICATION OF RISK IN MESSAGE FORMATION

The process of amplifying some signals of the physical event while attenuating others hasbeen a major element of the recently developed metaphor of social amplification of risk (Kas-person et al. 1988, Renn 1991, Kasperson and Kasperson 1996). The concept rests on the the-sis that events pertaining to hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cul-tural processes in ways that can intensify or attenuate individual and social perceptions of riskand shape behavioral responses. Behavioral responses, in turn, generate secondary social oreconomic consequences. These consequences extend far beyond direct harms to human healthor the environment and may include significant indirect impacts such as liability, insurancecosts, loss of confidence in institutions, or alienation from community affairs (Kasperson et al.


1988). Integrating the communication model into the social amplification concept provides auseful model of signal transformation.

As a starting point, the transformation of physical signals into meaningful verbal expressionsforms messages, which are then transmitted through various channels of communication bydifferent societal actors who partially amplify or attenuate them during several transformationprocesses. The transformed and amplified messages exert a specific incentive for socialgroups or individuals to take actions or modify behavior. Individuals and social actors serve asamplification stations, which process and respond to the information in various ways. Atti-tudes may change, institutions may decide to redirect their efforts, political pressure may beexerted to imitate political changes, and the risk management system may be reformed. Ulti-mately, social actions result in changes in the social structure and the physical world. Thesesecondary and tertiary effects of the amplification process can then result in technological andsocial change. This change triggers the development of new technologies, new control institu-tions, and risk policies. The cycle can start anew. This process is illustrated in Figure 4.

On the level of primary sources of communication, the selection of signals by at least two di-vergent groups, the scientists and the eyewitnesses, leads already to different routes of socialamplification. Scientific conventions focus on specific aspects of risk. They help to identifythe typical elements of all covered risk situations, but may obscure the uniqueness of the spe-cific event or hazard under consideration. Reversely, anecdotal evidence seems to center onthe uniqueness of the situation and the specific circumstances of the event and to neglect thetypical patterns that characterize risk in general. One major problem of risk communication istherefore the integration of scientific and anecdotal evidence, a problem that is aggravated bythe stochastic nature of risk (Keeney and von Winterfeldt 1986; Renn and Levine 1991).


Fig 4: Risk communication according to the concept of the social amplificationof risk

PoliticalResponses

TertiaryImpacts

Feedback

Feedback

Technological &Social Change

ScientificAdvancements

InstitutionalChanges

Changes inMedia Structure

Sourceof Risk

RiskAnalysis

HazardEvent

Signal Monitoring

Signal Transformation

IndividualAmplification

Stations

SocialAmplification

Stations

SocialResponses

Weak Influence Strong Influence

SecondaryImpacts

IndividualBehavior


3.1.5 THE SECONDARY SOURCES OF RISK COMMUNICATION

Following the process of risk communication illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, the messages ofthe primary sources are sent to secondary sources, mainly risk managers, but also scientificinstitutions and special interest groups (Renn 1988). These organizations are interested pri-marily in the scientific investigations focusing on dose-effect relationships and probabilities ofadverse events. The main objectives of the concerned institutions are to forecast, analyze, ormanage the hazard. In this respect they act on the basis of a similar mental model as the scien-tific community.

However, transmitters and the public are in general more interested in the specific circum-stances of the one incident reported or the consequences of a single hazard event. The inten-tion of the source to communicate the common lessons and to put the risk in perspective con-flicts with the interest of the receiver to learn more about the incidence and the real or poten-tial victims (Peters 1990). Furthermore, each institutional source will likely collect and passon information that supports its designated service and provides good arguments to legitimizeits existence and performance (Perrow 1984; Dietz and Rycroft 1987, p. 54f). Since institu-tions have different purposes, they will likely differ in the selection and processing of signalsstemming from primary sources. This difference in interpretation may be aggravated by dif-ferent competing risk assessments which reflect adversarial science camps or result from sci-entific advocacies within interest groups. But even if all these sources relied on the same pri-mary sources or cited the same evidence, the messages would still look as though they weredrawn from completely unrelated data bases.

Industry, regulators, scientists, and environmental watchdogs focus on different aspects of theproblem, amplify signals that each of them regards as confirmation of their basic philosophy,and that emphasize their role and function in the assessment and management of the respec-tive risk (Lynn 1986). In most cases, competing messages are not a product of misinformation,manipulation, or even lying. Rather every communicator has a different perspective in per-ceiving and evaluating the issue and is interested in conveying that perspective to the outsideworld. Fragmentation of information is therefore an inevitable side effect of plural interestarticulation (Peters 1990). The process of signal reception and recoding in this stage is lessrelated to the properties of the hazard, although this information may be packaged within themessage, but rather to the efforts of the institution to assess, analyze, or manage the respectiverisk.


3.1.6 ROLE OF TRANSMITTERS IN COMMUNICATION

The transmitter has two roles in the communication process: first, transmitters receive andprocess information. In addition to personal selection filters and evaluation strategies, profes-sional and institutional rules govern the selection of received signals and their interpretation.Journalists, for example, follow specific professional guidelines such as hearing both sides ina controversy, as well as institutional rules such as the required editorial style and the expec-tations of the perceived target audience for the respective medium.

Second, the transmitter acts as an information source by sending information to the final re-ceiver. The re-coding of messages involves conscious or unconscious changes of the originalinformation material. Messages from several sources may be integrated into one new messageor comments may be added. Obviously, both processes take place simultaneously, i.e. under-standing and re-coding the incoming message is an integral part of the transmitting process.

Study of the transformation of messages flourished in communication research. The theoreti-cal literature suggests many different concepts about the nature of this transformation (Peters1984; 1990; Peltu 1985, pp. 129-130; 1989; Sood et al. 1987, p. 30; Shoemaker 1987, p.125;Lee 1986, p. 175). Most of these concepts are related to two crucial questions. First, are themedia creating new messages or are they reflecting existing messages; second, how biased arejournalists in their coverage vis-a-vis their own social biases and external pressures? Neitherquestion has found a final answer yet (Peltu 1985, pp.140-141; Mazur 1987, p. 86; Lichten-berg and MacLean 1988, pp. 33-48).

Communication research in the 1950s and 1960s suggested a strong influence of the media onpublic opinion. Extensive testing in recent years, however, showed that the media are morelikely to set the agenda rather than creating new issues or changing the issues on theagenda.(McCombs and Shaw 1972; Peltu 1985, p. 140; Lichtenberg and MacLean 1988).With respect to the second question evidence exists to support almost all possible viewpointsranging from political and commercial pressures to courageous news reports in conflict withall vested interests. Cultural biases within the journalistic community have been found, butalso a variety of different political and social attitudes among journalists. Some journalistsperceive their job as a mere translation of events into verbal or visual expressions while otherbelieve they should play a more active role in shaping and explaining the issue (cf. the con-troversy about the studies of Kepplinger in the review by Lichtenberg and MacLean 1988,pp.37-45; Koecher 1986; Peters 1990).


In short: the extremes that media are mere reflectors of reality or that they are docile instru-ments of social pressure groups may occasionally be true, but they are not the rule. In reality,the situation is more complex: Media coverage is neither a product of external pressures noran autonomous subsystem within society (Lowry and DeFleur 1983; Raymond 1985). It re-flects internalized individual values, organizational rules, and external expectations. The issueitself, the institutional context, and the political salience of the issue determine which of thesethree factors is likely to dominate the transformation process. A universal theory that explainshow transformation takes place is therefore not likely to evolve.

All transmitters convert the original message into a new message according to institutionalrules, professional standards, role requirements, anticipated receivers' interests, and personalpreferences. The final product is a mix of original and re-coded message, thus leaving it to thefinal receivers to distinguish between the informational elements provided by the originalsource and the additions or deletions undertaken by the various transmitters.

3.1.7 THE TRANSMITTERS OF INFORMATION ON RISKS

Is there any evidence about specific media treatment of information on risks and particularlyon chemical risks? The media elicit information from direct eyewitnesses of hazard events(anecdotal evidence). They have usually access to the primary scientific reports (scientificevidence) but may prefer to use its popular derivations (such as articles in popular sciencejournals). In addition, they will be exposed to a bombardment of press releases and other in-formation from managing institutions or socially relevant groups. This abundance of materialhas to be collected, selected, digested, dissected, and finally re-coded.

The transmitters face a diversity of incoming messages caused by different perspectives on thenature of the risk and its best management. This diversity itself is useful to convey to the finalreceivers and to add to the impression that the risk issue is a controversial topic with lots ofconfusing and often contradictory messages. The widely accepted rule of fairness in newscoverage demands equal treatment for all points of views. This conflicts with the widely ac-cepted rule in scientific conflicts that professional dissent should be reconciled through meth-odological conventions, factual evidence, and peer review, notwithstanding genuine uncer-tainty about predictions. It also conflicts with the political conflict resolution mechanism ofmajority vote. The media, in contrast, transmit the claims of the different camps to the audi-ence regardless how much scientific evidence each of them has been able to compile andwhether it represents a majority or minority opinion. Transmitters in a pluralistic society tendto reinforce diversity, dissent, and relativity of values (Rubin 1987, p. 53). Even specialized


journals tend to focus on controversies that fit into their general philosophy. Thus dissent andambiguity are inevitable and irreversible parts of risk information in addition to the uncer-tainty of the consequences.

In contrast to the scientific community, the nature and the magnitude of the original hazard areonly of minor interest to most transmitters who prefer to focus on the way institutions handlerisks and communicate about their activities. Empirical studies demonstrate that neither thenumber of victims in an event nor the expected number of fatalities are correlated with thevolume and intensity of media coverage (Adams 1986; Singer and Endremy 1987, p. 14; Wil-kins and Patterson 1987, pp. 84; Sood et al. 1987, pp. 36-37). As Singer and Endremy havepointed out, the media emphasize hazards that are relatively serious and relatively rare; it isthe combination that gives them their punch (Singer and Endremy 1987, p.13). For example,the Chernobyl accident with 31 acute deaths cases received 129 minutes of CBS News cover-age while the 1976 Tandshan earthquake leaving 800,000 people dead received less than 9minutes on the average TV evening news (Sood et al. 1987, p.37).

The literature contains endless lists of factors that are assumed to determine the attractivenessof risk-related signals for transmitters. Such factors include: technologically induced hazard(versus natural hazard), possibility to blame someone for the outcome (Sandmann et al. 1987,p. 105), cultural distance from the place of occurrence (Adams 1986), human interest compo-nent, drama and conflict, exclusiveness of coverage (Peltu 1985, pp. 137-138), proximity topolitically hot issues, prestige of information source, and degree of conflict amongstakeholders (Peters 1984 and 1990).

Reviewing the abundance of theoretical suggestions and partially confirmed empirical results,one might conclude that the information processing in the media is almost random, or at leastvoid of any systematic pattern. However, some insights have been gained as a result of themedia studies undertaken so far. The major components of risk studies, probabilities andmagnitudes, seem to play only a minor role in the media coverage; they are hence attenuated.Intensified, however, are signals relating to conflicts among social groups, contradictions be-tween primary and secondary sources of information, risk events that could have been pre-vented or mitigated, and the involvement of individuals or organizations with high prestigeand political influence.


3.1.8 THE RECIEVERS: RISK PERCEPTION MECHANISMS

3.1.8.1 ATTENTION AND SELECTION FILTERS

Today’s society provides an abundance of information, much more than any individual candigest (Renn 1998). It is assumed that the average person is exposed to 7,000 bits of informa-tion each day of which s/he perceives around 700, acknowledges 70, stores seven in the shortterm memory and may remember less than one in the longer term. Most information to whichthe average person is exposed will be ignored. This is not a malicious act but a sheer necessityin order to reduce the amount of information a person can process in a given time.

The attention and selection process is not random although random elements may play a role.People have developed special strategies to select information that they feel is relevant tothem. This is also true for risk information. The major criteria for selection are ability andmotivation (Chaiken and Stangor 1987). Ability refers to the physical possibility that the re-ceiver can follow the message without distraction, motivation to the readiness and interest ofthe receiver to process the message. Three conditions have to be met to satisfy the criterion ofability: the information has to be accessible, the receiver must have the time to process theinformation, and other sources of distraction should be absent.

Applying these insights on selection procedures to information on chemical risks, it is quiteobvious that chemical product and their risks haven been main targets of communication.Special interest has to be given to small amounts of chemicals and risks below any thresholdor national standard. Although anecdotal knowledge suggests that small amounts of a "badagent" might create no problems as experienced with many medical drugs or even alcohol, itis rather unlikely that such effects are associated with "artificial" chemicals in the productchain or even environmental pollutants. Even if the information would be made accessible tothe public, most people would probably judge this information as not very credible. The mainreason for the rejection would be the fact that chemicals as well as environmental pollutantsare commonly regarded as negative outcomes of an industrialized society. People believe thatthese chemicals are the price we have to pay for the benefits of living in an mostly affluentsociety. There is a wide disagreement among stakeholders and members of the public whetherthis price is too high or justified compared to the benefits, but everybody shares the notionthat any substance released into the environment that is not part of the desired product has anegative impact on the quality of human health and the environment.


3.1.8.2 INTUITIVE HEURISTICS

Once information has been received, common sense mechanisms process the information andhelp the receiver to draw inferences. These processes are called intuitive heuristics. They areparticularly important for risk perception, since they relate to the mechanisms of processingprobabilistic information. One example of an intuitive strategy to evaluate risks is to use themini-max rule for making decisions. This rule implies that people try to minimize postdeci-sional regret by choosing the option that has the least potential for a disaster regardless ofprobabilities. The use of this rule is not irrational (Lee 1981). It has evolved over a long evo-lution of human behavior as a fairly successful strategy to cope with uncertainty (better safethan sorry).

This heuristic rule of thumb is probably the most powerful factor for rejecting or downplayinginformation on chemical risks. If any exposure above zero or above a defined threshold (mi-nus safety factor) is regarded as negative, the simple and intuitively reasonable rule is tominimize exposure makes sense. Most regulatory regimes are based on this simple rule rang-ing from the ALARA principle to the application of the best available control technology(BACT). Such principles lose their justification if one expects no effect or no adversarial ef-fect (NOEL) from exposure to specific concentration of the chemical in question. The task ofdetermining acceptable limits or standards is further complicated by the fact that there may beconsiderable inter-individual variances in susceptibility and that stochastic effects may be inplace that allow only probabilistic inferences. Most individuals would probably be simplyovertaxed by taking all these factors into account. It is unlikely that each individual will begiven the opportunity to explore his or her individual profile of susceptibility with respect tochemical agents. Regulatory actions can set limits but cannot force individuals to accept expo-sures that may be detrimental to some individuals while of no harm to the vast majority. Pub-lic health officials have no other choice but define reasonable limits of acceptable exposurethat ensure no harmful effects for almost everyone regardless of individual or social sensibil-ity.

In addition to the "better safe than sorry" rule, risk perception researchers have identified otherbiases in people’s ability to draw inferences from probabilistic information. These biases aresummarized in Table 2 (Festinger 1957; Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Ross 1977).

Risk managers and public health professionals should be aware of these biases because theyare found in public perception and may be one of the underlying causes for the observed pub-lic responses. For example, the frequent media coverage about the exposure of children topotentially toxic substances in toys has alarmed the public and promoted a response of outrage


based on the availability bias. As information on the negative impacts of these chemicals arewidely disseminated in the media and any poisoning or even cancer case among youngsterswill be associated with the exposure to these chemicals. It is almost impossible to convey themessage that such small doses do not have the potential to initiate toxic effects and provideonly a marginal risk increase with respect to carcinogenesis.

TABLE 2: Intuitive biases of risk perception

BIASES DESCRIPTION

Availability: Events that come to people's mind immediately are rated as more probable than events that are less mentally available.

Anchoring effect: Probabilities are adjusted to the information available or theperceived significance of the information.

Representativeness: Singular events experienced in person or associated withproperties of an event are regarded as more typical thaninformation based on frequencies.

The public perception of chemicals in products is often linked to disease and destruction. Itwill be extremely difficult to overcome this availability bias even if the scientific evidencetells otherwise. The stochastic nature of the effect implies that at least one individual might beharmed even if most individuals experience no negative health impacts.

3.1.8.3 SEMANTIC IMAGES

Psychological research has revealed different meanings of risk depending on the context inwhich the term is used. Whereas in the technical sciences the term risk denotes the probabilityof adverse effects, the everyday use of risk has different connotations. With respect to tech-nological risk, Table 3 illustrates the main semantic images (Renn 1985, 1989).

Chemical agents that are likely to trigger public attention are mostly to be found in the cate-gory of “slow” Agents. This has far-reaching implications. Most chemical risks belonging tothis category are regarded as potentially harmful substances that defy human senses and "poi-son" people without them knowing about it. Risks associated with food additives, air pollut-ants, water impurities, and chemical byproducts are mostly invisible to the person exposedand thus requires warning by regulators or scientists. In contrast to medical drugs where peo-ple are aware of the beneficial effects at the prescribed dose, chemical byproducts are neverassociated with intended positive impacts but always as negative side effects of an activity


that provides some utility to society or groups of society. Along with that image people tend torequire a deterministic regulatory approach when it comes to chemicals in the environment.Most surveys show that people demand zero-risk-levels, at least as the ideal target line. Risksbelonging to the other categories are subject to deliberations between benefits and risks andallow the development of trade-offs. Risk within the category of slow agents, however, triggerfeelings of avoidance and strict regulatory prohibitions. The former US food regulations (theso-called Delaney clause) reflect this public sentiment. Something that is regarded as truly badand vicious is almost impossible to link with a connotation of public acceptance.

TABLE 3: The four semantic images of risk in public perception

1. Pending Danger– artificial risk source– large catastrophic potential– inequitable risk-benefit distribution– perception of randomness as a threat

2. Slow Agents– (artificial) ingredient in food, water, or air– delayed effects; non-catastrophic– contingent on information rather than experience– quest for deterministic risk management– strong incentive for blame

3. Cost-benefit Ratio– confined to monetary gains and losses– orientation towards variance of distribution rather than expected value– asymmetry between risks and gains– dominance of probabilistic thinking

4. Psychological Thrill– personal control over degree of risk– personal skills necessary to master danger– voluntary activity– non-catastrophic consequences

The only exception may be the exposure to "natural" agents. Most people believe that any-thing that exists in nature cannot be harmful for people if consumed in modest amounts. Thatis why alleged natural drugs are associated with fewer or even none negative side effectscompared to alleged chemical drugs. The perceptions of natural toxins as benign reflect themodern impression or myth of "Mother Nature" who offers an invaluable set of beneficialresources to humankind in response for taking good care of Her. Chemical compounds, how-ever, are associated with artificiality and constitute threats to human health. They are onlybeneficial for humans in exceptional situations such as in cases of severe illness. In all otherapplications they should be avoided or minimized as they disturb the purity of natural re-sources such as water or food. If any of these "chemical" compounds turn out to be harmless


or even beneficial (as the hormesis thesis is claiming) if consumed in small amounts, it wouldcontradict anything that most modern people believe in. It would turn the beliefs of the intui-tive toxicologists upside down.

3.1.8.4 QUALITATIVE RISK CHARACTERISTICS

In addition to the images that are linked to different risk contexts, the type of risk involvedand its situational characteristics shape individual risk estimations and evaluations (Slovic1987; Renn 1990a/1990b). Psychometric methods have been employed to explore thesequalitative characteristics of risks (Slovic et al. 1981; Vlek and Stallen 1981; Renn 1985;1990a; Covello 1983; Gould et al. 1988; Slovic 1992):

Surveys and experiments based on the psychometric paradigm have revealed that perceptionof risks is influenced by a series of perceived properties of the risk source or the risk situation.These properties are called qualitative characteristics. Table 4 lists the major qualitative char-acteristics and their influence on risk perception.

TABLE 4: List of important qualitative risk characteristics

Qualitative Characteristics Direction of Influence

1. Personal control increases risk tolerance

2. Institutional control depends on confidence in institutional performance

3. Voluntariness increases risk tolerance

4. Familiarity increases risk tolerance

5. Dread decreases risk tolerance

6. Inequitable distribution of depends on individual utility,risks and benefits strong social incentive for rejecting risks

7. Artificiality of risk source amplifies attention to risk,often decreases risk tolerance

8. Blame increases quest for social and political responses

In addition to the qualitative risk factors, equity issues play a major role in risk perception.The more risks are seen as unfair for the exposed population, the more they are judged as se-vere and unacceptable (Kasperson and Kasperson 1983; Short 1984). The perception of healthrisks induced by chemicals is usually linked to an absence of personal control and the prepon-derance of dread thus amplifying the impression of seriousness.


Furthermore, the perception of risk is often part of an attitude that a person holds about thecause of the risk, i.e. industrial activity, consumption of food, energy production and others.Attitudes encompass a series of beliefs about the nature, consequences, history, and justifi-ability of a risk cause (Thomas et al. 1980; Otway and Thomas 1982). Due to the tendency toavoid cognitive dissonance, i.e. emotional stress caused by conflicting beliefs (Festinger1957), most people are inclined to perceive risks as more serious and threatening if the otherbeliefs contain negative connotations and vice versa. Often risk perception is a product ofthese underlying beliefs rather than the cause for these beliefs (Clarke 1989).

With respect to the qualitative characteristics, one would expect that risks from chemicalproducts are likely to be amplified rather than attenuated. First, most chemicals are associatedwith negative risk characteristics such as dread, lack of personal control, and invisibility mak-ing people even more concerned about their negative impacts than warranted by the predictedhealth effects alone. Second, the beliefs associated with the risk source, for example industry,center around greed, profit-seeking and alleged disrespect for public health. The ongoing de-bate on the role of the tobacco industry in deceiving public opinion may be a good illustrationof this negative image. The same impression dominates the perception of chemicals in thefood or water chain. Fourth, the possibility of chemical risks touches upon serious equity con-cerns if susceptibility to negative effects vary considerably among individuals or rest on prob-abilistic balancing. For all these reasons, it cannot be expected that risks from chemicals areregarded as inevitable byproducts of one‘s own lifestyle. This is one reason for the need of riskcommunication programs.

3.1.8.5 PERCEPTIONS AND PSYCHOSOMATIC RESPONSES

A major body of literature exists on how people assimilate information about hazards andtransform them into somatic or psychological effects (Colligan et al 1982; Aurand et al. 1993).If a person feels threatened by a risk, stress and other somatic effects are likely to occur.

Psychosomatic reactions can manifest themselves in two different forms: suppression of a realhealth threat and amplification of perceived health risks. In both cases, psychological factorsgovern the human response and may induce somatic reactions. It is well known that manypatients respond with real improvements of clinical symptoms when exposed to placebos. Onthe other hand, many people feel threatened by environmental pollutants although dose-response-studies would not suggest any health effect. Table 5 provides an overview of thecauses of stress, suppression of health impacts and amplification of such impacts (taken fromRenn 1997).

TABLE 5: Psychosomatic impacts


1. Psychological Stress– Real or alleged exposure to a hazard– Competing information– Reliance on information from others– Insufficient time to cope with risk– loss of trust– loss of personal control

2. Suppression of Health Hazards– Personal interest in risk source– Linkage between risk and highly esteemed benefit or habit (such as home)– Fatalism– Perception of unavoidability

3. Amplification of Health Hazards– Conflicting information (better safe than sorry)– Blame (inflicted by others)– Exposure to stochastic effects– Non-familiarity with hazard– Media induced hysteria

The inducement of stress is likely to be linked to three major influences: real or perceivedexposure to a risk agent, the perception of confusion about the risk level and appropriate reac-tion and finally the perception of insufficient time to make the necessary adjustments. If one ofthese factors is present, people tend to respond with heightened concern and worry. If all thesefactors are present combined with symbolic connotations of environmental threats and theperception of technological hubris, a response as strong as observed in the aftermath of theAlar controversy is not so surprising.

One of the most challenging questions surrounding the response to the public revelations ofchemical risks is the question on the interaction between risk perception and psychosomaticreactions. In popular medicine, treatments based on homeopathy have gained wide acceptancebecause it presupposes that extremely small concentrations of a natural substance can havelarge effects on improving human health. Most established physicians and biochemists attrib-ute the success of homeopathy to placebo effects. They claim that people believe in the posi-tive effects of these substances and activate their immune system to fight the disease. Thisarticle is not the place to discuss the arguments for or against homeopathy. But studying theperception of alternative medical treatments may provide some clues of how small exposuresto chemical risks are perceived in the wider population. Similar to the placebo effect that mayexplain therapeutic success, nocebo effects may result from fear and negative expectationswith respect to small amounts of potentially toxic or carcinogenic agents. Diffuse syndromessuch as the sick-house syndrome or the multiple chemical syndrome have often been associ-


ated with an interactive effect triggered by the combination of actual exposure and psycho-logical distress and anxiety.

Such individual case studies do not prove anything, but they exert strong repercussions onpublic opinion. If special advocates provide sufficient anecdotal evidence that they becamesick after being exposed to a dose that most experts would regard as entirely harmless, mostpeople would tend to reject the systematic claims and respond in the usual "better safe thansorry" mentality.

3.1.9 LESSONS TO IMPROVE THE UNDERSTANDING OF RISK INFORMATION

What are the general lessons to be learned from the research based on the traditional commu-nication model and its application for risk communication? How can one design or channel amessage so that it is likely to be selected by a transmitter and adopted by the final receiverwithout major distortions of the original intent of the message?

The common thread running through most risk communication studies is that public under-standing is hampered by the complexity of the risk concept (Short 1984). Furthermore, themulti-stage coding and re-coding process during the transmission of messages accounts fornumerous errors and misconceptions conveyed to the final receiver. Transmitters and receiv-ers reduce complexity by simplifying the message and focusing on those aspects that they re-gard as relevant. This is part of the communication reality in modern societies and providesthe social framework in which messages are sent and received.

The communication process can be compared to a free market system in which goods are pro-duced, transported, purchased, and consumed. Over the long run, most good products will findtheir market niche, whereas most bad products will eventually fail to meet the market test.Similarly, messages that contain important information are more likely to reach their destina-tion, but many trials may be needed to assure this success. In addition, packaging can help tosell the message faster and to overcome the obstacles on the way from the source via thetransmitter to the final receiver. The package can help if the message is worth transmitting,but even the best package will fail in the longer term if the message is poor, dishonest, or sim-ply irrelevant.

With respect to the final receiver, risk communication must address the qualitative character-istics of risk and the mechanisms of risk perception. It is not sufficient to confine the commu-nication process to the discussion of probabilities and consequences (Renn 1990). Communi-


cation should include aspects such as whether the exposure is voluntary, what possibilitiesexist to exert personal control (or if that is not feasible what institutions can fill that gap andmonitor and control risks on behalf of the public), how the risk and its consequences are man-aged, and how catastrophic events can be avoided.

Risk communication is particularly difficult for slow agents, which are associated with invol-untariness, delayed effects, inability to sense by human organs, lack of control, and unfamili-arity. To address these negative risk characteristics, it may be helpful to point to functionalequivalents of these characteristics in a broader societal context. Potential equivalents are theassurance of a democratic decision-making process to counteract the impression of involun-tariness and, as a replacement for personal control, the independence and impartiality of oper-ating and regulating agencies. This may produce trust in their capability to monitor routineemissions, check safety devices, and intervene if safety in the risk producing facility is notmanaged properly (Lipset and Schneider 1983). In addition, unfamiliarity can partially becompensated by better functional knowledge about the risk and the associated technology.

With respect to the transmitters, risk communicators should be aware of the major selectionrules of the media. Media report about events, not continuous performance. Hardly any jour-nalist is interested, for example, in writing a story about a long safety record of a hazardouswaste facility. If such a facility, however, faces an accidental release of hazardous material,one can be sure that this event will become headline news. To get a message across, commu-nicators need to link their message to events, not necessarily physical events. Social eventssuch as a celebration of 25 years of safe performance of a chemical factory or a completion ofa scientific study can also meet the event requirement.

Another major characteristic of the media is their interest in eyewitness reports. These testi-monies relate abstract issues or events to unique human experiences (which journalists assumehelp readers to identify with the victims or managers of the risk). Information that emphasizesthe human component and personalizes abstract material is more likely to be accepted by themedia than documents about the sequence of events or organizational competence (Peltu1989). However, risk communicators should be aware that "packaging" the information forthe purpose of pleasing the transmitter always faces the risk of creating suspicion and distrust.Transmitters often associate good packaging with the intent to manipulate the audience. Oneshould never forget that social stations of information processing are not computers or radiosthat operate according to prestructured rules (Rayner 1988), but they constitute thinking be-ings who reflect the messages they receive and change their selection rules to fit the circum-stances.


Interaction among transmitters, plural input from different sources, the coexistence of per-sonal, professional, and institutional selection and amplification criteria, and interactionamong different target audiences create enough complexity and uncertainty that the final ef-fect of the communication process can hardly be measured at all, let alone be effectively con-trolled. Even the rather simple step of making a message known to and understood by the tar-get audience faces the chaotic conditions of the communication market. Guidelines and reci-pes to improve risk communication can help to increase the probability that a message willreach its audience, but will never guarantee its success.

3.2 RISK COMMUNICATION AS A PROCESS OFESTABLISHING TRUST AND CREDIBILITY

3.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Institutions and social actors that are involved in managing risk have the problem of legiti-mating their decisions and policies in a political arena, in which the major stakeholders arestill defining their social role and in which the public is observing a confusing mix of contro-versial and often contradictory information. In this situation all parties rely on trust and credi-bility for their communication effort to impress the audience or even to influence their atti-tudes (Blair 1987; Zimmerman 1987). Credibility of information sources is, therefore, a keyissue in risk communication. At the same time it is the major social resource that may deter-mine which group or fraction will finally shape social risk policies and enhance its socialpower. Credibility is still a scarce resource for which different groups compete in their com-munication process.

Since trust is one major objective in risk communication and also a prerequisite for manyother objectives, risk communicators need a better understanding of the meaning and implica-tions of the term trust. If we consult the literature, we can find the following definitions:a) "the confidence that one will find what is desired from another, rather than what is

feared" (Deutsch 1973);b) an "Actor's willingness to arrange and repose his or her activities on Other because of

confidence that Other will provide expected gratifications" (Scanzoni 1979);c) "a generalized expectancy held by an individual that the word, promise, oral or written

statement of another individual or group can be relied on" (Rotter 1980);


d) "a generalized expectation related to the subjective probability an individual assigns tothe occurrence of some set of future events" (Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna 1985);

e) "assured reliance on a person or thing" (Webster's Third International Dictionary).

Apparently all definitions emphasize the reliability of information and the conviction by thereceiver that the source of a message has given truthful and complete information. For ourpurpose of defining trust in the context of communication, we suggest the following defini-tion:

Trust refers to the generalized expectancy that a message received is true and reliable andthat the communicator demonstrates competence and honesty by conveying accurate, objec-tive, and complete information.

Although trust and confidence are often used interchangeably, confidence in a source can bedistinguished from trust as a more enduring experience of trustworthiness over time. Accord-ingly confidence denotes the subjective expectation of receiving trustworthy information froma person or an institution. People have confidence in a source if their prior investment of trustin that source has not been disappointing over a longer period of time. If many persons sharesuch a confidence in a communication source, they assign credibility to this source. So we candefine credibility as the degree of shared and generalized confidence in a person or institu-tion based on their perceived performance record of trustworthiness. All three terms imply ajudgment of others about the quality of a message or a source. So they are all based on per-ceptions (Midden 1988). These perceptions, however, can be linked to special structural andperformance characteristics of institutions.

To make these terms more operational, it makes sense to identify the major attributes thatconstitute trust, confidence, and credibility. The literature includes several approaches (Gar-finkel 1967; McGuire 1985; Barber 1983; Lee 1986; Sheridan 1987). We decided to amalga-mate some of the proposed suggestions from the literature and developed the following classi-fication scheme. Trust can be substructured in the following six components:a) Perceived competence (degree of technical expertise assigned to a message or a source);b) Objectivity (lack of biases in information as perceived by others);c) Fairness (acknowledgement and adequate representation of all relevant points of view);d) Consistency (predictability of arguments and behavior based on past experience and pre-

vious communication efforts);e) Faith (perception of "good will" in composing information).f) Empathy (sharing a common feeling with the receiver of one‘s information)


Trust relies on all six components, but a lack of compliance in one attribute can be compen-sated for by a surplus of goal attainment in another attribute. If objectivity or disinterestednessis impossible to accomplish, fairness of the message and faith in the good intention of thesource may serve as substitutes. Competence may also be compensated by faith and viceversa. Consistency is not always essential in gaining trust, but persistent inconsistencies de-stroy the common expectations and role models for behavioral responses. Trust cannot evolveif social actors experience inconsistent responses from others in similar or even identicalsituations.

For analytical purposes it seems appropriate to differentiate between different levels of trust,confidence, and credibility, depending on the source and the situation. It makes sense, there-fore, to distinguish five levels of analysis: trust in a message, confidence in a communicator,confidence in an institution based on source perception, credibility of institutions based oninstitutional performance, and climate for trust and credibility in a macro-sociological context.

3.2.2 LEVELS OF TRUST

For analytical purposes it seems appropriate to differentiate between different levels of trust,confidence, and credibility, depending on the source and the situation. We developed, there-fore, a classification scheme that is composed of five distinctive levels of analysis: trust in amessage, confidence in a communicator, confidence in an institution based on source percep-tion, credibility of institutions based on institutional performance, and climate for trust andcredibility in a macro-sociological context.


Degree of abstraction

Com

plex

ity

Fig 5: Different levels of trust in risk communication

Socio-political Climate

Institutional Performance

Institutional Perception

Personal Appeal

Message

Figure 5 illustrates the cumulative nature of these five levels. The figure is a simple illustra-tion of the interrelations among the five levels. Each level is embedded in the next higherlevel. Consistent violation of trust-building efforts on one of the lower levels will eventuallyimpact the next higher level. Distrust on a high level sets the conditions and determines thelatitude of options for gaining or sustaining trust on a lower level. The order of levels is alsoassociated with an ascending order of complexity and abstraction. It is therefore easier to pre-dict how changes in communication may affect trust on the lower levels compared to changeson the higher levels. But the circumstances prevalent in the higher levels operate as con-straints on any effort to improve trust on a lower level.

The levels of analysis enable us to identify the elements within each level that may contributeto trust, confidence, or credibility. Table 6 illustrates the key variables in each of the levelsand shows their interrelations. The "message" rubric includes all the variables that influencethe perception of competence, fairness, consistency, and faith. Personal variables, such as ap-pearance, appeal, style, and responsiveness, affect the trust and confidence that a person con-veys to his or her audience. Furthermore, institutional performance and image color the ac-ceptance and evaluation of a message and influence the reception of the communicator by thetargeted audience. All variables that we identified as relevant on this level are summarized inthe two rubrics representing image and performance of institutions. Last, the social politicalclimate shapes the readiness of receivers to give credit in terms of prior confidence to a com-municator. In times of predominant distrust in institutions, the expectation that communica-


tors are trying to betray their audience is the default option in receivers' attitudes toward acommunication source. Under such conditions, active trust management is certainly required.In times of a positive climate of confidence in institutions, trust is given as an initial invest-ment or credit to new sources but may easily be lost if abused.

Table 6: Factors of credibility for different levels of analysis

MESSAGE:

Positive NegativeTimely disclosure of relevant information1 Stalled or delayed reporting1

Regular updating with accurate information1 Inconsistent updating

Clear and concise1 Full of jargon2

Unbiased3 Biased3

Sensitive to values fears and Inconsiderate ofconcerns of public4,5public perception3

Admits uncertainty1 Claims the absolute truth

From a legitimate reputable source3,4 From a questionable source

Organized message5

Use of metaphors5 Too abstract5

Explicit conclusions5 Receiver derive own conclusion5

Positive information recordedin early part of message5

Forceful and intense6 Dull6

PERSON:

Positive NegativeAdmits uncertainty1,3 Cockiness

Responds to emotions of public3 Indifference

Appears competent1,6

Similarity with receiver5,6 Perceived as outsider3

Has some personal stake in the Issue3

Clear and concise1 Too technical2

Perceived as 'expert'5,6

Perceived as 'attractive'5

Charismatic5

Trustworthy-honest, altruistic, and objective6

Empathetic with receiver Displays no empathy


INSTITUTIONS:

Positive Negativea) abstract

Healthy economy Recession7

Low Inflation, unemployment7

High inflation, high unemployment7

New administration- new ideas7 Corruption7

Domestic violence or unrest7

Period of relative tranquility7

Perception of competent leadership7 Poor leadership7

Perception of altruistic motivation7,8,9 Image of self-serving motivation7,8,9

Peace7 War7

INSTITUTIONS:

Positive Negativeb) concrete

Positive personal experience7 Negative personal experience7

Strong, competent leadership7 Perceived Incompetence7

Positive labor relations7 Layoffs/hiring freeze strikes7

Sound environmental policy7 Irresponsible environmental policy

Produces safe and good/services7 Poor quality goods/services7

Positive past record of performance7 Negative past record of performance7

Reasonable rates8 Exorbitant prices8

Undertakes socially relevant tasks9

Practical contributions to every day life10

Benefits outweigh costs11 Magnitude of risk taking greater than benefits11

POLITICAL / CULTURAL CONTEXT

Positive NegativeFaith in institutional structures7 Perception of structural decline7

Checks and balance Poor leadership/incompetence7

System functioning well7Corruption/scandal7

Energy crisis

Perception of unfair taxation

New and innovative ideas7

Perception of worseningFinancial situation7

Social unrest7

Terrorism7

Notes for Tables:


1 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research, Improving Dialogue withCommunities. By Billie Jo Hance, Caron Chess, and Peter Sandman. January 1988.

2 Parker, Laura . "Safety Board Hearings Focusing Public Attention Rather than Solving Crisis." Washington Post,July 29, 1988.

3 Gricar, Barbara GH, and Anthony J. Baratta. "Bridging the Information Gap at Three Mile Island: Radiation Moni-toring by Citizens." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Volume 19, 1983.

4 Anderson, Craig. "Abstract and Concrete Data in the Perseverance of Social Theories: When Weak Data Lead toUnshakeable Beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 19, 93-108 (1983).

5 Lee, Terrence. "Effective Communication of Information About Chemical Hazards." The Science of the Total En-vironment, 51 (1986): 149-183.

6 Covello, Vincent T, Paul Slovic, and Detlof von Winterfeldt. Risk Communication a Review of the Literature, Draft.July 1987.

7 Lipset, Seymour M. and William Schneider. The Confidence Gap; Business, Labor, and Government, in the Pub-lic Mind. New York, The Free Press. 1983.

8 Burnham, John C. "American Medicines's Golden Age: What Happened to It?" Science. Volume 215, 19 March1982.

9 La Porte, Todd R and Daniel Metlay. Technology Observed: Attitudes of a Wary Public." Science, Volume 188,11, April 1975.

10 Pion Georgine M. and Mark W. Lipsey. "Public Attitudes Toward Science and Technology: What Have the Sur-veys Told Us?" Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 45: 303-316, 1981.

11 Slovic, Paul et al. "Perception and Acceptability of Risk from Energy Systems." In Advances in EnvironmentalPsychology, Vol. 3, Energy: Psychological Perspectives. A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds) . Hillsdale, New Jersey,Erlbaum, 1981.

3.2.3 A REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON TRUST

This section presents some of the interesting findings of sociological and organizational re-search with respect to trust and credibility of institutions. These findings are derived fromsurveys and other statistical data. On the one hand, they are more applicable to "real" worldsituations than the laboratory experiments used in psychological research; on the other hand,they involve verbal reflections of respondents in surveys and may be influenced by other fac-tors than the proposed verbal stimuli. In addition, survey results leave more room for subjec-tive interpretation of data than laboratory results. Caution is also advised in translating theseresults from the arena in which they were observed to the arena of risk management.In this section, we will focus on the results of various studies and omit the description of themethodology and their specific design. For a more detailed review, the reader should consultthe respective literature (e.g., Lipset and Schneider 1983; Rourke et al. 1976; Katz et al.1975):

a) Researchers found a low correlation between the perception of institutional competenceand the desirability of the tasks and goals that the institutions were performing. The in-stitutions people like most received low ratings on competence and vice versa. Althoughsympathy helps to attain credibility, perceived competence alone may be sufficient forgaining trust. But the lack of sympathy makes people more critical towards the actual per-formance of the institution. Mistakes are more likely to be forgiven if the communicatorcan count on a sympathetic audience (Lipset and Schneider 1983).


b) Perceived competence of institutions was most likely associated with the perception of asuccessful task performance and the perceived cost-benefit ratio in meeting these tasks. Inaddition, the public image and the social prestige assigned to an institution serve as pre-liminary heuristic strategies to assign credibility (Matejko 1988).

c) Perceived fairness and openness, the second prerequisite for institutional credibility, isclosely linked to the transparency of the decision making process, the opportunities forpublic scrutiny and institutional control (check and balances), and the degree of personalsatisfaction with the rationale and procedures for decision making in the respective insti-tution. Surprisingly, the amount of actual opportunities for public involvement and par-ticipation was hardly correlated to perceived openness (Lipset and Schneider 1983; cf.theoretical concept Luhmann 1980).

d) Institutional case studies demonstrated that the erosion of credibility was often linked to:incompetence, poor performance, incomplete or dishonest information, withholding ofinformation, obscure and hidden decision making processes, denial of obvious problems,and denial of vested interests ( Midden 1988; Matejko 1988; Lipset and Schneider 1983;Bergesen and Warr 1979).

e) Credibility can be enforced by: good performance, fast responses to public requests, con-sonance with highly esteemed social values, availability for communication with out-siders, unequivocal and highly focussed information transfer, flexibility to respond to cri-sis situations or new public demands, and demonstration of public control over per-formance and money allocation (Lipset and Schneider 1983; Rourke et al. 1976; Pinsdorf1987).

Success stories of communication efforts in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry demon-strate clearly that overreacting to public requests never hurts (Pinsdorf 1987). Taking a prod-uct off the market even if only a tiny fraction of the product is contaminated or poisoned hashelped companies in the past to manage a credibility crisis and to regain public confidence.Private institutions were more often able to show such flexibility and immediacy in their re-sponse compared to governmental institutions. But the involvement of tax money in publicinstitutions adds a potential risk factor in the trust building effort. If too much money is spentfor communication, the intended effect may be counteracted by the outrage over the spendingof public money.


3.2.4 THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF RISK COMMUNICATION

The social context in which risk communication takes place is also an important factor forgaining credibility. Although the primary variables are related to the performance of the insti-tution and its perception in the public, the overall climate towards institutions in general has adefinite impact on the trust that people have in specific institutions. Research in the last twodecades has produced some of the factors that influence the social climate of trust:

a) Confidence in business and economic organizations depends on the perceived quality oftheir services, but also on the employment situation, the perception of power monopoliesin business, the observation of allegedly unethical behavior, and the confidence in otherinstitutions, such as government or press (inverse relationship; cf. Lipset and Schneider1983).

b) Confidence in political institutions depends on their performance record and openness,but in addition on the perception of a political crisis, the belief that government is treatingeveryone fair and equally, the belief in the functioning of checks and balances, the per-ception of hidden agendas, and the confidence in other institutions, such as business orpress (inverse relationship; cf Rourke et al. 1976).

c) The more educated people are, the more they express confidence in the system, but themore they are also disappointed about the performance of the people representing thesystem. Less educated people express more confidence in leadership, but show less trustwith respect to the system or institutions in general (Lipset and Schneider 1983).

d) Political conservatism correlates positively with confidence in business and private enter-prise, and negatively with confidence in government and public service (this may be US-specific). Liberal positions are correlated with lack of confidence in both, business andgovernment (Lipset and Schneider 1983).

In summary, social climate pre-structures the conditions under which an institution has to op-erate for gaining or sustaining trust. In a positive social climate, people tend to invest moretrust in institutions from the beginning and may be more forgiving if part of this trust isabused. In a negative social climate people tend to be very cautious in investing trust in anyinstitution and request to have more control over the performance of the affected institution. Iftrust is misused, it takes much time and effort to encourage people to start investing in thetrustworthiness of the institution.


3.2.5 LESSONS FOR RISK COMMUNICATORS

What kind of advice can we give to risk communicators of how to design and implement arisk communication program that incorporates the findings of past research on trust and credi-bility and includes the more anecdotal evidence of risk communication efforts in the past?Using our analytical model for distinguishing between message, person, institution, and socialclimate, we have developed a set of conditions and prerequisites for gaining trust in commu-nicating with the public, in particular the customer of chemical products. These refer to pre-conditions for risk communication and provide orientations for analyzing and designingcommunication programs:

a) To improve the trust in a message , we recommend explaining the rationale of risk analy-sis and its role for risk management so that the audience is better prepared as to what toexpect. In addition, the decision making process and the past record of the institutionshould be included in the message so that people can assign competence to the actors andget a better feeling of the trade-offs that had to be made in meeting the specific risk man-agement task. Evidence of competence, fairness towards other viewpoints, and referencesto commonly shared values and beliefs will make a message more attractive and couldhelp to address the centrally and peripherally interested audience at the same time. Con-clusions should be made explicit and vested interests should not only be admitted, butjustified in terms of public mandate or economic function.

b) To improve trust in a personal communicator, the major goal is to develop a communi-cation climate that enables the audience to identify with the communicator and to sharehis or her experiences and beliefs. The more a communicator manages to avoid the maskof an institutional spokesperson and the more he or she can express compassion and em-pathy for the audience, the more likely the audience will identify with the speaker and feelcompelled to the arguments. As noted throughout this book, conveying probabilistic in-formation is a real challenge, but can be done in reference to everyday experience ofbudget constraints and consumer products. Furthermore, evidence of successful use ofrisk analyses in hazard management can serve as demonstration to define the role andlimitations of risk analysis in improving public health and the environment. Peripheralcues should be confined to commonly shared symbols, appealing formats, and surprises inopenness and honesty and should definitely avoid negative labeling of potential oppo-nents or typical advertising gimmicks. Peripheral cues are important for successful com-munication, but cues have to be selected carefully to please the peripherally and centrallyinterested audience.


c) To improve the credibility of an institution, the vital factor is performance, not publicrelations. Confidence has to be gained by meeting the institutional goals and objectives.In addition, credibility is linked to the evidence of being cost-effective and open to publicdemands. These two goals are often in conflict with each other (Kasperson 1987), butthey have to be treated as complementary, and not as substitutional, goals. Fairness andflexibility are major elements of openness. In addition to assuring sufficient external con-trol and supervision, public participation may be implemented as a means to demonstratethe compliance with the political mandate and to avoid the impression of hidden agendas.On the premise of good performance, communication programs can be designed to reflectthese accomplishments. Such programs should provide honest, complete, and accurate in-formation that is responsive to the needs and demands of the prospective audience. Thiscan only be done if the source engages in an organized effort to collect feedback from theaudience and establish a two-way communication process. Involvement of citizens, openhouse policies, discussion forums, open TV channels, or other means should be exploredto assure the functioning of the two-way communication structure.

d) To improve the social climate is not within the realm of possibilities for a single commu-nicator. But large-scale organizations or association of organizations can affect the overallclimate. One way to improve the climate is to accept and even endorse checks and bal-ances in the control of the organization. The other obvious solution is to demonstrate theflexibility and foresight of the organization in meeting and anticipating new public claimsand values. The impersonal nature of institutions may be mitigated by providing speciallocal services and by engaging in community activities and programs. Governmental in-stitutions will receive more credibility if they do not leave the impression of permanentcrisis management, but of competence and preparedness for long-term threats and chal-lenges (in particular pertaining to environment and technology).

Many different factors affect credibility. On the personal level, appearance, communicationstyle, honesty, and creating an atmosphere of identification of the audience with the commu-nicator are major variables that influence credibility. On the institutional level, the actual per-formance in terms of role fulfillment, cost-effectiveness and public expectations as well asopenness to new claims and demands constitute confidence and help to build credibility. Fur-thermore, the social climate and the level of controversy associated with the issue affect theassignment of credibility independent of the performance of the actors involved.


3.3 RISK COMMUNICATION AS PERSUASION:THE ROUTE TO ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIORAL CHANGES

3.3.1 REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Psychological research about attitude and attitude change has shed some light on the condi-tions under which receivers of information assign trust or one of its building blocks, such ascompetence, to a communicator. These research results are usually discussed in the frame-work of persuasion: What elements of a message or a communication context are likely toenhance or diminish the persuasive effect of a message? What elements of the message areremembered and which trigger changes in opinions or attitudes?

Before reporting on some results of these studies, we should mention the restrictions andlimitations of these studies to avoid misinterpretation (McGuire 1985; Anderson 1983; Meine-feld 1977). Most of the research in attitude change has been performed in laboratory settingswith student populations. Most experiments were done with a limited set of issues or topics sothat it is not clear whether the revealed relationships can be extended to other topics or audi-ences. Many experiments were conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, both time periods in whichthe social climate for trust and credibility differed considerably from today's climate. For ex-ample, experiments involving experts as communicators resulted usually in considerable per-suasion effects in the early 1960s whereas more recent experiments demonstrate more am-biguous results depending on the existence of a social controversy over the issue and the so-cial perception of the expert's own interests (Eagly et al. 1981; Heesacker, Petty and Cacioppo1983). But at the same time many of the research findings are consistent over long time peri-ods and have been tested with a variety of subjects and topics (Chaiken and Stangor 1986;Eagly and Chaiken 1984). So they can be regarded at least as well founded hypotheses forapplication in risk communication until more specific research studies are conducted.

The following review of research results is based on psychological experiments on persuasion.For the purpose of this chapter, we will only present the conclusions and omit the methodol-ogy or design of these studies. Readers interested in a more detailed review should consult therespective review articles (McGuire 1985; Chaiken and Stangor 1987; Eagly and Chaiken1984; and specifically for risk communication Lee 1986). Among the factors that have beenfound to enhance the persuasiveness of a communication are:– Attractiveness of information source: attractiveness is composed of similarity of positions

between source and receiver; likability of source; and physical attraction (Lee 1986;McGuire 1985; Chaiken and Stangor 1987).


– Sympathy or empathy of the receiver with the source: this refers to the possibility of areceiver to identify with the source or its motivations (Mc Guire 1985; Eagly and Chaiken1984).

– Credibility of source: among the components tested are perceived competence, expertise,objectivity, impartiality, and fairness (Lee 1987; Tyler 1984; Rempel and Holmes 1986).

– Suspicion of honest motives: receivers do not detect any hidden agendas or motives be-hind the communication effort (Rosnov and Robinson 1967; Eagly et al. 1981).

– High social status or power of communication source: the effect of these two variablesdepend heavily on the issue and the composition of the audience (Mc Guire 1985;Chaiken and Stangor 1987; Lee 1986).

These factors seem almost intuitively plausible. A communicator is likely to leave a morelasting impression on the audience if the message appears honest, accurate, and fair and if thecommunicator is a likable person with whom the audience can easily identify. The more diffi-cult question, however, is how a communicator can accomplish to impart these impressionson the audience under real life conditions. What do we know about the effectiveness of mes-sage composition and personal appeal that would allow us to tailor information programs toseek more persuasive power?

(Un)fortunately, we do not have any recipes to enhance credibility or to increase the persua-siveness of a message. But psychological research in the past two decades has yielded someinteresting, sometimes even counter-intuitive, findings that link specific aspects of messagecomposition or personal style of communication with persuasive effect. These findings aresummarized in Table 6 under the two rubrics of "message" and "personal factors". Some ofthe more counter-intuitive factors deserve special mentioning:

a) High credibility sources, such as scientists or opinion leaders, produce more opinionchange, but no difference in message learning. The learning of a message is more relatedto the similarity of the message than to existing attitudes and beliefs (Hovland and Weiss1967; McGuire 1985).

b) Perceived expertise depends on many factors. Among them are status, education, per-ception of technical authority, age, and social class. If expertise of a communicator ischallenged in public, people tend to focus on substitutes for expertise, such as suspectedinterests or reliance on reference group judgments (Heesacker et al. 1983; Renn 1984).

c) Stating explicitly the persuasive intent is usually more convincing than hiding such anintent and leaving it to the audience to make their own inferences. People like to know


what the communicator wants them to believe. If it is not openly stated, they will suspecta hidden agenda (Lee 1986; McGuire 1985).

d) Perceived fairness and social status are both variables that can compensate lack of objec-tivity. Even if people are aware that the communicator has a vested interest in the issueand that s/he argues from a specific viewpoint, they may believe the message or developconfidence in the communicator provided that the information presented appears to befair to potential counter-arguments and that it is presented with technical authority (Lee1986; McGuire 1985).

e) Being explicit when drawing conclusions and presenting counter-arguments to potentialobjections have been proven more effective than operating with implicit conclusions orpresenting only one side of the story. The two often conflicting goals of fairness to theopponents of the communicator's view and of honesty about one's own motives have to bereconciled in each communication effort in order to be most persuasive (Lee 1986;McGuire 1985).

f) The perception that the goals and motives of the source serve a common interest or referto highly esteemed social values, such as protection of the environment or public health,enhances public confidence in the communicator but reinforces distrust if the task per-formance of the communicator is perceived as weak. People invest more trust in these in-stitutions in the beginning, but tend to be more disappointed if the outcome does notmatch their expectations (Tetlock 1986).

g) The agreement to listen to disliked sources increases the probability of attitude change.Although likableness of a source usually enhances the persuasive effect, the mere accep-tance of listening to a non-likable source may motivate the audience to focus on the mes-sage instead of the source of communication. The psychological mechanism involvedhere is called avoidance of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957). One can only justifyspending time with a disliked source if at least the message is worth the effort. However,the motivation to engage in communication with a disliked person may also serve as a re-assurance of how bad the source and the message are. Which of the two reactions is likelyto emerge as a result of a communication with a disliked source? This depends on the de-gree of commitment to one's previous attitude, the strength and salience of the attitudewith respect to other beliefs and values, and the perception of vested interests of thesource (Fazio et al. 1977; Chaiken and Stangor 1987).


All these insights are helpful to design communication programs and to train communicatorsfor their task. But it should be kept in mind that most of these results were accomplished inrather artificial laboratory environments and may not be valid for the specific risk communi-cation arena. Risk communicators who are familiar with the persuasion literature have assuredus, however, that many of the findings from persuasion research match very well their per-sonal experience with risk communication. So these studies provide some helpful clues ofhow to design a more effective communication program and may serve as a starting point toconduct more specific research projects on trust in risk communication.

3.3.2 THE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

One of the most prevalent models of attitude and opinion change is the "elaboration-likelihood model of persuasion," developed by Petty and Cacioppo in the late 1970s (overviewin Petty and Cacioppo 1986). The major component of the model is the distinction betweenthe central or peripheral route of persuasion. The central route refers to a communicationprocess in which the receiver examines each argument carefully and balances the pros andcons in order to form a well-structured attitude. The peripheral route refers to a faster and lesslaborious strategy to form an attitude by using specific cues or simple heuristics. When is areceiver likely to take the central route and when the peripheral route?

The peripheral route is taken when the issue is less relevant for the receiver and/or the com-munication context is inadequate to get the message across. In this case, the receiver is lessinclined to deal with each argument, but forms an opinion or even an attitude on the basis ofsimple cues and heuristics. In Figure 6 these peripheral cues are integrated into the source-receiver model and assigned to each step in this model (source-related, message-related, andtransmitter-related cues). In addition, the context in which the communication occurs pro-vides additional cues for the receiver to generate interest in the message (context-relatedcues.).


CUES

Credibility

Reputation

CompetingSources

SocialAttraction

Fig 6: The peripheral cues of persuation in communication

Sources Messages Transmitters

CUES

MessageLength

Number ofArguments

Attractivenessof Style andPackage

Shared Valuesand Symbols

CUES

PerceivedImpartiality

Past Record

Likability

Credibility

Attractivenessof Medium

Feedback Feedback

• Social Prestige• Trust „Climate“

Social Context of Communication• Degree of Controversy• Message Competition

• Media Reputation• Media Plurality

With respect to the source, aspects such as credibility, reputation, and social attractiveness areimportant cues for receivers to adopt a specific message. It also helps to have the messagesponsored by multiple sources (Midden 1988). The message factors include the length of amessage, the number of arguments, the package (color, paper, graphic appeal, and others), andthe presence of symbolic signals and cues that trigger immediate emotional responses (cf.Kasperson et al. 1988). The transmitter of a message may also serve as carrier for specificcues: the perceived neutrality and fairness, the personal satisfaction with the transmitter in thepast (this magazine is always right), the similarity with the political or ideological position ofthe transmitter, and the social credibility assigned to a transmitter are major elements in theformation of opinions or attitudes. In addition, specific channel-related aspects, such as visualimpressions from the TV screen, are readily accessible cues.


Social context variables that serve as peripheral cues are often neglected in the discussion ofthe peripheral route. The social climate for trust and credibility and the image of institutions ina society may evoke a specific predisposition to accept or reject the arguments of a source(Lipset and Schneider 1983). With respect to the risk arena, the dominant impression of expertcontroversy and the presence of competing messages are significant cues that initiate a skepti-cal or at least cautious reception mode (Slovic 1987). Other variables can be added to thiscategory, as, for example, the plurality of transmitters or the social reputation of specific me-dia.

3.3.3 A MODIFICATION OF THE ELABORATION-LIKELIHOOD MODEL

Inspired by the elaboration-likelihood model and based on previous work on stages of attitudeformation, Debra Levine and Ortwin Renn have developed a modified version of the elabora-tion likelihood model (Renn and Levine 1991). This model is less specific in terms of identi-fying the factors that lead either to a central or peripheral route of information reception, butmore elaborate with respect to the different sequential stages in selecting, assimilating, andevaluating information. The major thrust of this model is the simultaneous presence of centraland peripheral elements in the different stages of attitude formation.

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate this model of attitude formation or change. The left column de-scribes the sequential steps of attitude formation starting with the reception of a message andending with the post-rationalization of the beliefs (the cognitive components of an attitude).This multi-step decomposition of the attitude formation process is based on attitude theoriesby Rokeach (1969) and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and was developed and graphically dis-played in Renn (1984). The right column lists the factors that influence each stage of this pro-cess and that determine whether the attitude formation process is terminated prematurely. Inconcordance with the elaboration-likelihood model, two routes of persuasion exist: a centraland a peripheral route.


Information Processing

Rationalization

Influential Factors

Avoidance of Dissonance

• Personal Interest• Credibility of Arguments

- Plausibility- Perceived Impartiality- Perceived Fairness

• Congruency with:- Personal Values- Other Attitudes- Reference Group Opinion

• Social Desirability

Attributive Biases & Heuristics

• Ability to Receive Message• Detection of Attractive

Symbols and Cues• Personal Interest in Topic

or Communicator• Potential for Involvement• Source Credibility• Identification with Source

Attitude Formation

Balancing of Pros and Cons

Evaluation

Intutive Processing

Selection Filters

Attention Filters

Message

Fig 7: The central route of persuasion

The first three stages are identical for both routes of persuasion. They refer to the process ofbecoming aware of the information (attention filters), selecting the relevant parts of the infor-mation, and processing its cognitive content. The receiver will decide during these threestages whether the issue is of central interest to him/her and whether s/he will terminate thefurther processing of the information. If the interest is low and if other compensatory cues aremissing, then the person is likely to reject or ignore the information. Medium interest or thepresence of specific cues will initiate a peripheral route to process the information further.High interest and the presence of many reinforcing cues are likely to produce enough in-volvement for a recipient to choose the central route. The important factor here is that bothroutes, the central and peripheral route, are dominated by peripheral cues in the early process


of attitude formation. In addition to the receiver's prior experience and interest in the subject,awareness of a message is enforced by a special set of peripheral cues, such as novelty of theinformation, the mentioning of prestigious persons or institutions, or specific symbolic key-words or clues that link emotional involvement to the subject (Frey 1986).

Information Processing

Rationalization

Influential Factors

Avoidance of Dissonance

• Personal Appeal• Credibility of Source• Message Format

- Length- Number of Arguments- Package Attractiveness

• Attractiveness of Cues andSymbols in Message

• Reference Group Opinion• Social Desirability

Attributive Biases & Heuristics

• Ability to Receive Message• Detection of Attractive

Symbols and Cues• Personal Interest in Topic

or Communicator• Potential for Involvement• Source Credibility• Identification with Source

Attitude Formation

Ordering of Salient Cues

Evaluation

Intutive Processing

Selection Filters

Attention Filters

Message

Fig 8: The peripheral route of persuasion

The third step of intuitive processing of cognitive information refers to the heuristics andcommon sense mechanisms of drawing inferences or attributing linkages to the informationreceived (see Section 3.1.8). Although one cannot classify these heuristics as peripheral cues,they are still representations of simple rules to cope with complex information. In the periph-


eral route, these cognitive heuristics may be replaced partially by even simpler cues like credi-bility of the source. If cognitive information is processed at all, these heuristics will govern theintuitive generalization process regardless what route of information processing is pursued.

The major difference between the peripheral and the central route lies in the process of evalu-ation, the fourth step of the model. In the central mode, the receiver performs two types ofevaluations: first, an assessment of the probability that each argument is true; and second, anassignment of weight to each argument according to the personal salience of the argument'scontent. The credibility of each argument can be tested by referring to personal experience,plausibility, and perceived motives of the communicator. In modern societies with highly pro-fessionalized and differentiated knowledge, experience and plausibility are often weak in-struments to evaluate the truth of a statement (Renn 1986a). No lay person, for example, hasany empirical evidence to prove or disprove an expert's claim that low-level radiation causescancer. Rather recipients use secondary cues, such as prestige of the source, suspicion ofvested interests, to evaluate the accuracy of a statement (Eagly et al. 1981; Heesacker et al.1983). It is important to note that in these instances, where personal experience is lacking,both, the central and the peripheral route are almost identical because they rely on judgment oftrust or credibility. However, this judgment is made for each argument in the case of the cen-tral route but is made for the total message or holistically for the source in the case of the pe-ripheral route.

The evaluation of the salience of each argument is performed by a comparison of the messagewith one's personal interests, one's own value system, other major attitude and beliefs, refer-ence group judgments and the perceived social desirability of the intent of the message(Chaiken and Stangor 1987; Renn and Swaton 1984). This process may be more or less pro-nounced and not all comparisons have to be made for each argument. But the major incentivesfor changing an attitude in the central mode are the proximity with and the affinity to one' owninterests, values, and world views. In the peripheral mode, receivers do not bother to deal witheach argument separately, but look for easily accessible clues to make their judgment on thewhole package.

The last two stages refer to attitude formation and rationalization. After the formation processin which the receiver incorporates the message into his/her attitude system, the potentialnegative arguments are frequently suppressed or re-directed into a positive view. This is donemore intensely if the balancing act requires more mental work and pain. This process of bol-stering helps to avoid cognitive dissonance and post-decisional regret (Janis and Mann 1977).The two routes do not differ in these last two stages.


3.3.4 ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR

Once attitudes are formed, they generate a propensity to take actions. As known from manyattitude studies, the willingness to take actions, however, is only partly related to overt be-havior (Allport 1935; Rokeach 1969; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Wicker 1979). A positive ornegative attitude is a necessary but not sufficient step for corresponding behavior. A person'sdecision to take action depends on many other variables, such as behavioral norms, values,and situational circumstances. Hence, the communication process will influence the receiver'sbehavior, but the multitude of sources, the plurality of transmitters, and the presence of situ-ational forces on personal behavior render it almost impossible to measure, not to mention topredict, the effect of a single communication activity.

The weak correlation between attitudes and behavior is one of the major problems in riskcommunication that aims to change behavior (for example, for emergency responses). Mostanalysts agree that it is difficult enough to change or modify attitudes through information, butthat it is even more difficult to modify behavior. Some success stories (Salcedo et al. 1974;Pinsdorf 1987. pp. 47ff; Fessenden-Raden et al 1987; McCallum 1987) in the area of healthrisks (for example, reducing cholesterol and pesticide use) as well as some failures (Mazur1987; Sandman et al. 1987) to promote actions (for example, protection against indoor Radon)suggest that three factors are crucial for increasing the probability of behavioral changes:– the continuous transmission of the same information even after a positive attitude has

been formed towards taking that action (need for constant reinforcement);– the unequivocal support of most relevant information sources for the behavioral change

advocated in the communication process (need for consistent and consensual informa-tion);

– adoption of the behavioral changes by highly esteemed reference groups or role models(social incentive for imitation).

Information about emergency responses may in addition require actual exercises or practicesbefore the desired behavioral responses are internalized (Covello et al. 1989). Behavioralchanges, particularly if they involve painful changes of habits, are rarely triggered by infor-mation alone. Rather, information may be effective only in conjunction with other social fac-tors, such as changes of social norms, roles, and prestige.


3.3.5 LESSONS FOR RISK COMMUNICATION

How can studies on persuasion be helpful for analyzing and designing risk communicationprograms? First, it points out the differences in information processing between the peripheraland the central route of persuasion. The centrally interested audience will collect informationpro and con while the peripherally interested are keen on obtaining easily available clues fororientation.

The perception of credibility is a major component of the attention and selection filter in bothroutes and, at the same time, a heuristic tool to assess the probability that an argument is in-deed accurate and valid. Functional equivalents are available for both routes of persuasion, butspecifically for issues in which personal experience and intuitive plausibility are lacking, trustin the communicator plays a major role. In the central mode trust is important for judging thecredibility of each argument, in the peripheral mode it is important for evaluating the sourcesof information.

Second, an effective risk communication program must contain a sufficient amount of periph-eral cues to initiate interest in the message, but also enough "rational" argumentation to satisfythe audience with central interest in the subject. The problem is how to avoid anger and rejec-tion by centrally interested persons if they are confronted with "superficial" cues, such as ad-vertising gimmicks, and how to sustain the interest of the peripherally interested persons ifthey are confronted with lengthy argumentation. The problem can be resolved if the messageavoids to include "obvious" cues, but relies on cues that are acceptable for both audiences, thecentrally and the peripherally interested persons.

Third, the complexity and multitude of influential factors that govern attitude formation makeit impossible to design fool-proof recipes for influencing (or even worse: manipulating) peo-ple. Internal values, the perception of own interests, external pressures, and role models, aswell as personal experience, are the most powerful agents in attitude formation. The designand packaging of the message may help to make people aware of the message and to appear atleast more credible. But the desired effect of changing people's attitudes or opinions will occuronly if the powerful evaluation agents, on which the communicator has hardly any influenceare already directed in favor of the message.


3.4 CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESSFULSTAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

3.4.1 A GENERAL INTRODUCTION INTO THIS FIELD OF RESEARCH

The fourth major objective of risk communication is to provide the conditions for organizingprocedures of stakeholder involvement on risk issues (Covello et al. 1986; Zimmerman1987a; National Research Council 1989, 1996). Inviting the major actors to be part of the de-cision making process from the beginning improves the likelihood that the resulting decisionwill be accepted (Presidential/Congressional Commissions 1997). Unfortunately, early publicinvolvement may compromise, however, the objective of efficient and effective risk manage-ment or violate the principle of fairness. As economists have pointed out, preferences of peo-ple with respect to public goods are often driven by short-term interests and objectives andreflect people‘s expectation of immediate pay-offs rather than of investments in a sustainablefuture (Cansier 1995; Fritsch 1992).

In many instances, informing the public about risks and demonstrating the hazards of danger-ous habits are mandated by law and refer to beneficial tasks of risk management agencies intheir pursuit to reduce potential harm to their constituency. The recent debates on technologi-cal risks, including nuclear energy and genetic engineering, and the growing public concernabout environmental risks, such as food additives or air pollutants, however, point to the ne-cessity of a communication process beyond conveying information on hazards. Risk commu-nication focusing on large technological systems or widely distributed environmental threatsrequires a more direct input from stakeholders and members of the public. The objective ofsuch a communication process is to provide a common platform for members of the public,representatives of stakeholder groups, professionals, and regulators. This joint effort may helpto reach three goals: to include the best available expertise on existing risk levels and reduc-tion methods, to ensure that the concerns and values of those affected by risk managementdecisions are integrated in the deliberation process, and to adjust regulations to the values andvisions of those who need and want to be protected from hazards.

A dialogue among experts, stakeholders, regulators, and the public at large can be organizedin many different forms. Practical experiences have been made with advisory committees,citizen panels, public forums, consensus conferences, formal hearings, and others (cf. thecontributions in Renn et al. 1995). Democratic values can provide the means by which to con-struct this dialogue and the social science perspectives can help to make these forms of dia-logue work, i.e., to make sure that each group can bring their own interest and values to the


process and yet reach a common understanding of the problem and the potential solutions(Fiorino 1989; Kunreuther and Slovic 1996). Participation is not only a normative goal of de-mocracy, it is also a requirement for rational decision making in situations in which evaluatinguncertainty is part of the management effort. If all society would care about this to reduce theamount of physical harm done to its members, technical expertise and some form of economicbalancing would suffice for effective risk management. However, society is not only con-cerned about risk minimization (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982). People are willing to sufferharm if they feel it is justified or if it serves other goals. At the same time, they may rejecteven the slightest chance of being hurt if they feel the risk is imposed on them or violates theirother attitudes and values (MacLean 1986; Kasperson 1986). Context matters. So does proce-dure of decision making independent of outcome. “Real” consequences are always mediatedthrough social interpretation and linked with group values and interests. Responsive risk man-agement needs to incorporate public values into the decision making process.

Value judgments enter risk management decisions on at least three levels (Keeney 1996;Fischhoff 1996). The first set of value judgments refer to the list of criteria on which accept-ability or tolerability of risks should be judged, the second set of value judgments determinethe trade-offs between criteria, and the third set of values should assist risk managers in de-signing resilient strategies for coping with remaining uncertainties. Using informed consent onall three value inputs does not place any doubt on the necessity of applying the best of techni-cal expertise for defining and calculating the performance of each option on each criterion. Asmuch as the best available expertise is needed, public input is equally important because itprovides a foundation for determining the objectives of risk policies and for weighing thevarious criteria that ought to be applied when evaluating different options.

Before discussing an organizational proposal of how to integrate expertise, regulatory consid-erations, and public values in risk communication, it is necessary to sharpen the analyticalview on the risk communication environment and take a closer look at the political arenas inwhich risk debates usually take place.

3.4.2 THE POLITICAL ARENA OF RISK

There are different ways of conceptualizing risk debates within the social sciences. An inter-esting candidate for such a concept is the arena metaphor (Lowi 1964; Kitschelt 1980; O'Rior-dan 1983; Renn 1992a). Using the metaphor of an arena, social conflicts can be described as astruggle between various actors on the arena stage, controlled by a rule enforcement agency


(usually a governmental institution) and observed by professional "theater critics" (the media)who interpret the actions on the stage and transmit their reports to a larger audience.

To be successful in a social arena, it is necessary to mobilize social resources. These resourcescan be used to gain attention and support of the general public, to influence the arena rules,and to "score“ in the arena in competition with the other actors. Social resources include:money, power, social influence, value commitment, and evidence (cf. Parsons 1963; Münch1982). Money provides incentives (or compensation) for gaining support; power is the legallyattributed right to impose a decision on others; social influence produces a social commitmentto find support through solidarity; value commitment induces support through persuasion andtrust; and evidence can be used to convince persons about the likely consequences of theirown actions. Resources are not the ends of the actors, but the means to accomplish their goals.An overview of the resources and their respective media are illustrated in Figure 9.

Resources Dominant Generalized MotivatorSector Medium

Money Economy Transfer of EconomicCapital Incentives

Power Politics Force Punishment

Authority Compliance

Social Social System Reputation TrustInfluence Reward Prestige

Value Culture Persuasion SolidarityCommittment Meaning Cultural Unity

Evidence Science Methodology Expected

Rhetoric Impacts

Fig 9: Sectors of resource mobilization and their media

Actors will enter risk arenas if they expect this will provide them with an opportunity to gainmore resources (Renn 1992a; Kitschelt 1980; Dietz et al. 1989). Beyond their reservoir ofresources at any time, they can gain more resources by exchanging one resource for another(for example, winning public trust by sharing power through participation or exchanging evi-dence for prestige) and by communicating to other actors and the media. The objective ofcommunication is to receive public support and to mobilize other groups for one's own cause.The more resources a group can mobilize in an arena, the more likely it is that it dominates theconflict resolution process and gets its point of view incorporated in the final decision.


Graphical Representation of theArena Metaphor

Actor1

Actor1

Actor1

Actor1

RuleEnforcer

GERERAL PUBLIC

SocialGroups

PotentialStake-holders

Political Institutions

SocialGroups

Potential

Issue Amplifiers

Social MobilizationCommunication Flow

Stake-holders

Figure 10 illustrates the arena metaphor (cf. Hilgartner and Bosk 1988; Renn 1992a). Thecenter stage of the arena is occupied by the principal actors, i.e., those groups in society thatseek to influence policies. Groups often focus on several issues at once and are hence involvedin different arenas; others focus only on one issue in a single arena. Each arena is character-ized by a set of rules: formal rules that are coded and monitored by a rule enforcement agencyand informal rules that are learned and developed in the process of interactions among the


actors. Among the formal rules are laws, acts, and mandated procedures; among the informalrules are regulatory styles, political climate of group interactions, and role expectations. Inmost cases the rules are external constraints for each single actor. Formal rule changes requireinstitutional actions, informal changes occur as a result of trial and error and may change ac-cording to whether or not rule bending is penalized. Several actors may join forces to changethe rules even if they disagree on the substance of the issue.

The rule enforcement agency ensures that the actors abide by the formal rules and often coor-dinates the process of interaction and negotiation. In many arenas the rule enforcement agencyis also the ultimate decision-maker. In this case, all actors try to make their claims known tothe decision-makers and to convince them by arguments or through public pressure to adopttheir viewpoint. In an adversarial policy style, which is typical for the United States(O’Riordan and Wynne 1987; Renn 1995), rule enforcement agencies regard themselves moreas brokers or mediators than as sovereign administrators who are consulted by various socialactors, which tends to be the European policy model (Coppock 1985).

Issue amplifiers are the professional “theater critics“ who observe the actions on stage, com-municate with the principal actors, interpret their findings, and report them to the audience.Through this communication process they influence the allocation of resources and the effec-tiveness of each resource to mobilize public support within the arena. The audience consists ofother social groups who may be enticed to enter the arena and individuals who process theinformation and may feel motivated to show their support or displeasure with one or severalactors or the arena as a whole. Part of the political process is to mobilize social support byother social actors and to influence public opinion.

The outcome of the arena process is undetermined. On one hand, various actors may play outdifferent strategies that interact with each other and produce synergistic effects (game theo-retical indeterminacy). Strategic maneuvering can even result in an undesired outcome thatdoes not reflect the stated goal of any actor and may indeed be suboptimal for all participants.On the other hand, interactions in the arena change the arena rules (structural indeterminacy).

Novel forms of political actions may evolve as actors experience the boundaries of tolerancefor limited rule violations. Therefore, arenas often behave like undetermined or non-linearsystems; small changes in strategies or rules are capable of producing major changes in con-flict outcomes. It is also difficult to predict who is going to benefit from potential rule changesinduced by trial and error. Both characteristics of arenas limit the use of arena theory for pre-dictions, but do not compromise its value for explanation and policy analysis.


Risk arenas operate under similar structural rules and constraints like any other arena. Riskdebates focus on two issues: what is an acceptable level of risk (or how safe is safe enough)and how are risks and benefits distributed in society (or how safe is fair enough)? All socialgroups which feel that their interests or values are affected by a specific risk source may becompelled to enter the arena. Success in the risk arena relies on the social actors’ ability tomobilize resources. Beyond these commonalties that risk arenas share with all other arenas,there are some specific characteristics of risk arenas that are worth mentioning (Renn 1992a):

1. The evidence trap: Finding a consensus or a viable compromise in conflicts requires anagreement on the validity of presented evidence. If each group provides conflicting evi-dence about factual impacts, it is hard to reach a consensus. The less maneuverabilitygroups have in making factual claims without being “falsified“, the more likely it is thatthey will reach similar conclusions in terms of evidence. This increases the value of evi-dence for social mobilization. In risk issues this normalizing effect of evidence throughreality checks is less powerful than in other arenas, because the stochastic nature of thepotential consequences (uncertainty) does not allow any inference with respect to a singlefacility or event. Consequently, there are competing and rationally defensible strategiesfor coping with risk, such as using the expected value as an orientation for risk accept-ability or taking the Minimax approach (minimize your maximum regret).

2. The symbolic nature of risk issues for distributional conflicts: Risk arenas attract socialgroups which demand legitimation of existing distributional practices. The risk as suchmay not be the trigger for entering the stage but rather its symbolic meaning for decision-making processes in society and for existing power structures. Such groups use the riskarena to mobilize social resources for affecting policies in other arenas. They may opposebig business or favor deregulation. Regardless of their motives or goals, actors in riskarenas are not always interested in the generic risk issue, especially if it has become asymbol for other issues.

3. Social desirability: The tendency to use a risk arena for other purposes is also reinforcedby the saliency of the risk issue for the audience. Affluent societies show strong concernsfor health, safety, and environment. Mobilization strategies that build on common con-cerns can be very effective in generating value commitment and social influence. Risk is-sues are excellent candidates for piggybacking one's own claims with the respective "hot"risk issue.

4. Structural weakness of risk management agencies: Risk management agencies face thedilemma of dealing with ambiguities and thus often do not succeed in exchanging power


for other desired resources. In particular, they have difficulties exchanging institutionallyprovided evidence for trust, since evidence is so contested. As a result they are unable tomobilize social resources beyond their power reservoir. Because of the weak position ofthe rule enforcement agencies, risk arenas tend to experience more rule innovations thanother arenas where strong enforcement agencies are present. At the same time agencies inrisk arenas have less influence to resolve conflicts and to persuade the actors to partici-pate in negotiations.

The plurality of evidence, the weak role of rule enforcement agencies, the tendency of the riskdebate to attract symbolic connotations, and the public responses of moralization and polari-zation have all contributed to the importance of the risk issue in contemporary societies. Be-yond the individual perception of risks and dangers, risk debates serve as catalysts for morefundamental debates on social and political institutions and distribution of social resources(Luhmann 1990; Beck 1992).

3.4.3 THE THREE LEVELS OF RISK DEBATES

After looking at the structure of risk debates, it is important to focus on the substance of riskdebates. Although topics vary from risk source to risk source, most risk debates center aroundthree themes (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1985, Rayner and Cantor 1987):– factual evidence and probabilities;– institutional performance, expertise, and experience;– conflicts about world views and value systems.

Figure 11 is a graphical representation of this model using a modified version of the originalcategories (taken from Renn and Levine 1991). The first level involves factual argumentsabout risk probabilities and the extent of potential damage. If the problem is a lack of techni-cal knowledge on the part of the public, procedures of communication should focus on in-forming the public with the consensual expert opinions. In this case, participation is equiva-lent to successful risk information. Two-way-communication is needed only to make sure thatthe message has been understood and that the technical concerns of the audience have all beenaddressed.

One of the main problems of risk communication with respect to the first level of risk debatesis the issue of framing. Depending on the wording of the questions or the framing of the prob-abilistic information (for example: stating probabilities in terms of losses or gains), peoplewill change their preference order for decision options with identical outcomes (Kahneman


and Tversky 1984). The effects of framing occur first after the introduction of the issue andlater when the factual information is compared with the values of the respondents. To avoidconfusion about the effects of framing, risk communicators should use the same framing ra-tionale throughout the information process and enlighten respondents about the effects offraming so that they become aware of the ambiguities inherent in the way probabilistic infor-mation is presented.

��yyyFig 11: The three levels of risk debate

WORLD VIEWS & VALUES

EXPERIENCE &COMPETENCE

KNOWLEDGE & EXPERTISE

Degree of Complexity

Inte

nsity

of

Con

flict

The second, more intense, level of debate concerns institutional competence to deal with therisks. At this level the focus of the debate is on the distribution of risks and benefits, and thetrustworthiness of the risk management institutions. This type of debate does not rely on tech-nical expertise, although reducing scientific uncertainty may help. Risk communication on thesecond level requires evidence that the risk managers have met their official mandate and thattheir performance match public expectations. In a complex and multifaceted society such evi-dence is difficult to provide.

Gaining trust requires a continuous dialogue between risk managers, stakeholders, and repre-sentatives of the public (Barber 1983). The chemical industry‘s program on "responsible care"may serve an example for such a dialogue. The participants express their position on aspectssuch as emergency planning or accident management, they exchange interpretations about thecurrent situation or future threats and work on mutually acceptable means to improve existingrisk management practices. In such dialogues, trust can be gained by showing that the riskmanagement institution has been and continues to be competent, effective, and open to publicdemands. Instruments such as citizen advisory committees, joint risk managing boards, or


institutionalized exchange of risk-related information have been proven effective in facilitat-ing a dialogue on the second level of risk debates.

At the third level the conflict is defined along different social values, cultural lifestyles, andtheir impact on risk management. In this case, neither technical expertise nor institutionalcompetence and openness are adequate conditions for public involvement. Decision makinghere requires a fundamental consensus on the issues that underlie the risk debate. This impliesthat the communication requirements of the first and second level, i.e. risk information or in-volvement in a two-way dialogue, are insufficient to find a solution that is acceptable to all ormost parties. Third level conflicts require dialogue-based models of communication, such asmediation processes, citizen panels, or consensus conferencing. Table 7 summarizes the threelevels of risk conflicts and their communication requirements.

As long as value issues remain unresolved, even the best technical expertise and the most pro-found competence cannot overcome social, cultural, and political value conflicts (Plough andKrimsky 1987). Furthermore, knowledge, values, and worldviews are not independent fromeach other. Many groups have constructed a coherent body of beliefs that integrate cognitive,evaluative and normative claims about the world. These belief systems can form epistemiccommunities, which offer a complete, often holistic view of the world and define the legiti-mate realm of rules for evaluating claims of evidence (von Schomberg 1995; Lynch 1996).Once such a belief system is established, it is almost immune against any type of counter-claims. The only path to agreement will be through the creation of mutual gains for all parties(win-win-situation) or the generation of overarching values that are evoked or generatedthrough dialogue-based sessions (Renn and Webler 1996). Both resolution strategies requirethat the value issues are taken as the starting point of discourse and not the level of factualknowledge. This strategy does not guarantee a resolution of conflict. Many value conflicts thatarise on the third level of conflict cannot be resolved at all. In such a case collectively bindingdecisions rely on compromises or majority votes rather than consensus.

There is a strong tendency for risk management agencies to re-frame higher level conflictsinto lower level ones: third level conflicts are presented as first or second level conflicts, andsecond level conflicts as first level. This is an attempt to focus the discussion on technicalevidence, in which the risk management agency is fluent (Dietz et al. 1989). Citizens whoparticipate in the discourse are thus forced to use first level (factual) arguments to rationalizetheir value concerns. Unfortunately, this is often misunderstood by risk managers as "irration-ality" on the part of the public. Frustrated, the public retreats to due process and routinizationof the process, abscising it of substance, and departs with disillusion and distrust of the system(Hadden 1989).


Table 7: The three levels of risk debates and their communication needsand evaluation criteria

Levels Issue of Conflict Communication Needs Evaluation Criteria

1 Technical expertise Information transfer – access to audience– comprehensibility– attention to public concerns– acknowledgment of

framing problems

2 Experience, Dialogue with – match betweentrustworthiness stakeholders and performance and

the public public expectations– openness to public

demands– regular consultations- commonly agreed

procedures for crisissituations

3 Values, Worldviews Dialogue, Mediation – fair representation of allaffected parties

– voluntary agreement toobey rules of rationaldiscourse

– inclusion of best availableexpertise

– clear mandate andlegitimation

3.4.4 COPING WITH RISK: REQUIREMENTS OF A RATIONAL DISCOURSE

There is a need for a structure or organizational model of risk debates that acknowledges theformal conditions of the respective risk arena and addresses all three levels of risk conflicts.Most authors agree that such a debate should be organized according to the rules of a rationaldiscourse (cf. McCarthy 1975; Habermas 1984; Kemp 1985; Bacow and Wheeler 1984: 190-194; Burns and Überhorst 1988; Fiorino 1990; Renn 1992b; Webler 1995). The phrase "dis-course" has different meanings in the social sciences. Discourse is often used to mean eitherlanguage texts as wholes in their context of use or the world views which inform our under-standing. In the theory of communicative action the term discourse denotes a special form of adialogue in which all affected parties have equal rights and duties to present claims and testtheir validity in a context free of social or political domination. Within the context of riskcommunication, a discourse provides a platform to resolve a conflict or engage in joint prob-lem solving by a specific set of rules. The success or failure of a discourse depends on manyfactors. Among the most influential are :


(1) A clear mandate for the discourse participants: Risk communication on the third levelrequires a clear and unambiguous mandate of what the deliberation process should pro-duce or deliver. Since discourses are informal instruments, there should be a clear under-standing that the results of such a discourse cannot claim any legally binding validity(unless it is part of a legal process such as arbitration). All the participants, however,should begin the discourse process with a clear statement that specifies their obligationsor promises of voluntary compliance once an agreement has been reached. As a pre-decisional tool the results of such discourses should be regarded as consultants‘ reportssimilar to the scientific consultants who articulate technical recommendations to the le-gitimate authorities. Risk managers from the public or private sector need to acknowledgeand to process the outcome of the deliberations, even if they are not obliged by law tofollow the advice. However, the process will fail its purpose if deviations from the rec-ommendations are neither explained nor justified to the discourse participants.

(2) Openness of result: A discourse will never accomplish its goal if the decision has beenmade (officially or secretly) and the purpose of the communication effort is to "sell" thisdecision to the other parties. Individuals have a good sense whether a decision-maker isreally interested in their point of view or if the process is meant to pacify potential pro-testers (Fiorino 1989).

(3) A clear understanding of the options and permissible outcomes of such a process: Theworld cannot be reinvented by a discourse nor can historically made decisions be deliber-ately reversed. All participants should be clearly informed about the ranges and limits ofthe decision options that are open for discussion and implementation. If for example, thetechnology is already in existence, the discourse can only focus on issues such as emis-sion control, monitoring, emergency management or compensation. But the range of per-missible options should be large enough to provide a real choice situation to the partici-pants.

(4) A predefined time table: It is necessary to allocate sufficient time for all the deliberations,but a clear schedule including deadlines is required to make the discourse effective andproduct-oriented.

(5) Equal position of all parties: A discourse needs the climate of a "powerless" environment(Habermas 1984). This does not mean that every party has the same right to intervene orclaim a legal obligation to be involved in the political decision making process. However,the internal rules of the discourse have to be strictly egalitarian; every participant musthave the same status in the group and the same rights to speak, make proposals, or evalu-


ate options (Kemp 1985). Two requirements must be met: First, the decision about theprocedure and the agenda must rely on consensus; every party needs to agree. Second, therules adopted for the discourse are binding for all members and no party is allowed toclaim any privileged status or decision power. The external validity of the discourse re-sults are, however, subject to all legal and political rules that are in effect for the topic inquestion.

(6) Neutrality of the facilitator of the discourse: The mediator who facilitates such a processshould be neutral in his/her position on the respective risk management issue and re-spected and authorized by all participants. Any attempt to restrict the maneuverability ofthe mediator should be strictly avoided.

There are also discourse requirements pertaining to the behavior of the participants that arenecessary for facilitating agreement or at least a productive discussion. Among these require-ments are:

(7) Willingness to learn: All parties have to be ready to learn from each other. This does notnecessarily imply that they have to be willing to change their preferences or attitudes.Conflicts can be reconciled on the basis that parties accept other parties' position as a le-gitimate claim without giving up their own point of view. Learning in this sense entails:– Recognition of different forms of rationality in decision making (Perrow 1984;

Habermas 1984);– Recognition of different forms of knowledge, be it systematic, anecdotal, personal,

cultural, or folklore wisdom (Habermas 1971);– Willingness to subject oneself to the rules of argumentative disputes, i.e. provide

factual evidence for claims; obey the rules of logic for drawing inferences; discloseone's own values and preferences vis-a-vis potential outcomes of decision options,and others (Webler 1995).

(8) Resolution of allegedly irrational responses: Discourses in which the public, interestgroups or affected individuals are represented frequently demonstrate a conflict betweentwo contrasting modes of evidence: the public refers to anecdotal and personal evidencemixed with emotional reactions, whereas the professionals play out their systematic andgeneralized evidence based on abstract knowledge (Lynn 1986; Keeney and von Winter-feldt 1986; Dietz et al. 1989). A dialogue between these two modes are rarely accom-plished because experts regard the personal evidence as a typical response of irrationality.The public representatives perceive the experts often as uncompassionate technocrats whoknow all the statistics, but couldn't care less about a single life lost. This conflict can only


be resolved if both parties are willing to accept the rationale of the other party's positionand to understand and maybe even empathize with the other's party view (Bacow andWheeler 1984: 191). If over the duration of the discourse some familiarity with the proc-ess and mutual trust among the participants have been established, role playing can fa-cilitate that understanding. Resolving alleged irrationalities means to discover the hiddenrationality in the argument of the other party.

(9) De-moralization of positions and parties: The individuals involved in a discourse shouldagree in advance to refrain from moralizing each other or each other's position (Bacowand Wheeler 1984; Renn 1992a). Moral judgments on positions or persons impede com-promise. Something cannot be 30% good and 70% bad; either it is good, bad, or indiffer-ent. As soon as parties start to moralize positions, they cannot make tradeoffs betweentheir allegedly moral position and the other parties' immoral position without losing face.A second undesired result of moralizing is the violation of the equality principle statedabove. Nobody can assign equal status to a party, which is allegedly morally inferior. Fi-nally, moralizing masks deficits of knowledge and arguments. Even if somebody knowsnothing about a subject or has only weak arguments to support his/her position, assigningblame to other actors and making it a moral issue can help to win points. The absence ofmoralizing other parties or their position does not mean to refrain from using ethical ar-guments, such as "this solution does not seem fair to the future generation" or "we shouldconserve this ecosystem for its own sake". Ethical arguments are essential for resolvingenvironmental disputes.

3.4.5 THE MODEL OF COOPERATIVE DISCOURSE

Is there any procedure that would meet the requirements for such a discourse and at the sametime assure the incorporation of expertise and social values? Many models for public partici-pation have been suggested in the literature that promise to facilitate a rational discourse(Crosby et al. 1986; Amy 1987; Kraft 1988; Burns and Überhorst 1988; see reviews in: Nelkinand Pollak 1979; Pollak 1985; Fiorino 1990; Renn et al. 1995).

This is not the place to discuss these models in detail. I would like to focus on one hybridmodel of citizen participation that Thomas Webler and I have termed "cooperative discourse".With several modifications, we have applied this model to studies on energy policies andwaste disposal issues in West Germany, for waste-disposal facilities in Switzerland and tosludge-disposal strategies in the United States (Renn et al. 1985, 1989; 1991; 1993; 1995).The model entails three consecutive steps:


(1) Identification and selection of concerns and evaluative criteria. The identification of con-cerns and objectives is best accomplished by asking all relevant stakeholder groups to re-veal their values and criteria for judging different options. It is crucial that all relevantvalue groups be represented and that the value clusters be comprehensive and includeeconomic, political, social, cultural, and religious values. To elicit the values and criteriafor such a list the technique of value-tree analysis has proven appropriate (Keeney et al.1987; von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986; von Winterfeldt 1987). The resulting output ofsuch a value-tree process is a list of hierarchically structured values that represent theconcerns of all affected parties.

(2) The identification and measurement of impacts and consequences related to differentpolicy options. The evaluative criteria derived from the value-tree are operationalized andtransformed into indicators by the research team or an external expert group. These op-erational definitions and indicators are reviewed by the participating stakeholder groups.Once approved by all parties, these indicators serve as measurement rules for evaluatingthe performance of each policy option on all value dimensions. Experts from varying aca-demic disciplines and with diverse perspectives on the topic of the discourse are asked tojudge the performance of each option on each indicator. For this purpose, a modificationof the Delphi method has been developed and applied (Webler et al. 1991). This methodis similar to the original Delphi format (Turoff 1970), but based on group interactions in-stead of written responses. The objective is to reconcile conflicts about factual evidenceand reach an expert consensus via direct confrontation among a heterogeneous sample ofexperts. The desired outcome is a specification of the range of scientifically legitimateand defensible expert judgments and a distribution of these opinions among the expertcommunity with verbal justifications for opinions that deviate from the median view-point.

(3) Conducting a rational discourse with randomly selected citizens as jurors and representa-tion of interest groups as witnesses: The last step is the evaluation of potential solutionsby one group or several groups of randomly selected citizens (Dienel 1978; Dienel 1989,Dienel and Renn 1995). These panels are given the opportunity to evaluate and designpolicy options based on the knowledge of the likely consequences and their own valuesand preferences. The participants are informed about the options, the evaluative criteria,and the consequence profiles. The representatives of interest groups and the experts takepart in the process as witnesses; they provide their arguments and evidence to the panelswho ultimately decide on the various options. This deliberation process takes time: citizenpanels are conducted as seminars over three to five consecutive day or over a longer pe-riod of up to six months. All participants are exposed to a standardized program of infor-


mation, including hearings, lectures, panel discussions, videotapes, and field tours. Theprocess is similar to a jury trial with experts and stakeholders as witnesses and adviserson procedure as "professional" judges.

Figure 12 illustrates the functions and procedure of this model. The figure shows that all threegroups (experts, stakeholder groups, and the general public) play a role in each step, but thatthey are encouraged to impact the decision process with the specific knowledge with whichthey are most proficient. This division of labor provides a check-and-balance process and asequential order for multiple actor involvement.

Organizing a cooperative discourse requires careful planning and preparation and relies on thewillingness of the communicator to learn from the participants and to adjust his/her prefer-ences if deemed necessary. Several procedures lend themselves to organizing a cooperativediscourse. However, it is not so much the structure of the process that determines success orfailure of a risk discourse as the willingness of all participants to meet the conditions specifiedin section 3.4.4.


Elicitation ofValue Treesfrom Each

Group

Suggestions forExperts;

Group-specificAssessments

Witness toCitizen Panels

Additions toconcern List

(Generation ofOptions)

Group Delphicollection of

ExpertJudgment

Participation asDiscussants or

VideotapedPresenters

Additions andModifications of

Concern List

Transformationof Expert

Judgments inGroup Utilities

OptionEvaluation

and Recom-mendation

Input toConcern List

(Generation ofOption)

Incorporation ofInstitutionalKnowledge

Wirness toCitizen Panels

Transformationof concerns

into Indicators

Verification ofExpert

Judgments

Compilation ofCitizen Report

Concernsand Criteria

Assessmentof Opinions

Evaluation ofOptions

InterestGroups

Experts

Citizens

Sponsor

ResearchTeam

Priority ofOptions and

Policy Recom-mendations

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3

Actors

Fig 12: Basic concept of the three-step participation model

Joint ValueTree

PerformanceProfile for

Each Option

Products


3.4.6 EXPERIENCES WITH THE COOPERATIVE DISCOURSE MODEL

Applications of the cooperative discourse model in Germany, Switzerland and the UnitedStates emerged from the early experiences with citizen panels in urban planning in differentGerman cities and communities (Dienel 1978). From the 1970ies to today approximately 26cities or communities used citizen panels as a method of local planning. More than 2,600adults were involved in these panels for an average of 3-5 days each. Based on this experi-ence, Renn and several of his colleagues experimented with the cooperative discourse method,first in Germany and later in other countries. The following paragraphs describe several large-scale applications in three countries:

– The most comprehensive study dealt with the evaluation of national energy policies inGermany. In August 1982, the German Ministry of Research and Technology initiated alarge research project to investigate the preferences of the German population with re-spect to four energy policy options developed by a parliamentary commission in 1979(Renn et al. 1985; Renn et al. 1986; Dienel and Garbe 1985). The Government was inter-ested in eliciting reliable information on which energy scenario was most appealing to thepopulation and on what basis citizens would evaluate the policy options laid out in eachscenario. A research team in which one of the authors served as senior investigator con-ducted a three-year study to collect data on public preferences and to analyze the motiva-tions and underlying reasons for the judgment process of evaluating the predefined energyscenarios. The study operated with 24 citizen panels (each including approximately 25participants) drawn from seven communities in different parts of West Germany. Thepanels unanimously rejected a high energy supply scenario and opted for an energy policythat emphasized energy conservation and efficient use of energy. Nuclear energy was per-ceived as non-desirable but – at least for an intermediate time period – as a necessary en-ergy source. The panelists recommended stricter environmental regulation for fossil fuelseven if this meant higher energy prices. They developed a priority list for policies anddrafted recommendations for implementing high priority policies (Dienel and Garbe1985).

– A regional study was conducted from 1994-1996 in the northern part of the black forest(Southern Germany). The objective was to have stockholders and citizens take part inplanning a waste-management program (Akademie 1996; Carius et al. 1996). A round ta-ble with 16 major stakeholder group was organized in 1994 to develop waste reductionpolicies and to assess the potential recycling potential of the area. The same group alsowas asked to find the most suitable technical solution for waste processing before finaldisposal. After these decisions were made, 200 randomly selected citizens from potential


host communities were asked to find the most appropriate site for the types of facilitiesthat had been chosen previously. The most outstanding result was that panelists werewilling to approve a siting decision that would affect their own community. The decisionwas given to the regional planning board which approved the recommendations withsome minor modifications. The different county parliaments and the city council of thelargest city within the region, however, have been reluctant to accept the recommendationas of now.

– In 1992, the Building Department (Baudepartement) of the canton Aargau (Northern partof Switzerland) asked the author (at that time affiliated with the Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology) to organize a cooperative discourse for siting one or several landfills in theeastern part of the canton. The mandate of the research team was to organize a coopera-tive discourse with four citizen panels. These panels were asked first to develop criteriafor comparing the different sites; second, to evaluate the geological data that were col-lected during that period; third, to eliminate the sites that should not be further consid-ered; and fourth, to prioritize the remaining sites with respect to suitability to host a land-fill (Webler 1994). The selection of representatives for the citizen panels differed fromour theoretical approach. Rather than use random selection, we gave an oversight com-mittee (consisting of the mayors of each eligible town and the head of the Building De-partment) the task to recruit and select citizen participants. Once the representatives werechosen, four panels were formed, each consisting of two representatives from each poten-tial site community. With the exception of one community, every town sent eight peopleto the panels. Not a single one of these people dropped out during the process. BetweenJanuary and June 1993 the panels met 7-9 times before they attended a workshop of twodays to come up with the final decision. All participants rated each site on the basis oftheir self-selected evaluative criteria, their personal impressions, the written and oral in-formation, and the results of consultations with experts on the basis of a Group Delphi.All four panels composed a list of prioritized sites for the landfill. The most remarkableoutcome was that each panel reached a unanimous decision. In December of 1993, the re-sult of the participation process was made public. The canton government approved theresults and entered the next phase of the licensing procedure. As of today, the selected siteis still considered but the erection of a landfill has been postponed as the amount of wastehas sharply decreased over the last few years.

– There has been one major attempt to implement the original version of the cooperativediscourse in the United States1. In July 1988 the Department of Environmental Protection

1 Using randomly selected citizens for policy making and evaluation is not alien to the United States. The Jef-

ferson Center in Minneapolis has conducted fourteen projects with citizen panels similar to the planning cells


of New Jersey asked a research team of Clark University directed by the author to applythe model to sewage sludge management problems (Renn et al. 1989). The objective ofthe project was to give citizens of Hunterdon County, New Jersey, the opportunity to de-sign the regulatory provisions for an experimental sludge application project on a RutgersUniversity research farm located in Franklin Township (New Jersey). Although muchsmaller in scale, the project provided many new insights and experiences that partiallyconfirmed our German observations and partially documented the need for adjustments tothe U.S. political culture. The citizen panels were conducted on two consecutive week-ends. The desired goal was to elicit recommendations for regulatory provisions thatshould be included in the permit for the land application of sewage sludge on the site inquestion. The factual issues were discussed in a Group Delphi with eight sludge experts(Webler et al. 1991). The results of the Delphi were fed into the deliberation process ofthe panels. The envisioned program for the citizens panel was radically altered after theparticipants, in particular the land owners abutting the site, made it clear that they rejectedthe project of land application and that they felt more comfortable conducting their ownmeetings without assistance of a third party. The citizens met several times without theassistance of a facilitator and formulated recommendations that were forwarded to thesponsor (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). In addition to the policyrecommendation to reject the proposal of land application, the process provided valuableinformation about citizen concerns and values. Whereas most of our consulted expertswere convinced that citizen concerns focused on issues such as odor, traffic, and con-tamination of ground water, the value tree analysis of the citizens revealed that their ma-jor concerns were the expected change of community image from an agricultural commu-nity to a "waste dump" and the long-term effects of pollutants on farmland (Webler et al.1995). In addition, the questions of equity and fairness played a major role in the citizendeliberations. The unexpected change of the panel's structure to exclude the facilitatorsfrom further meetings was clear evidence that the U.S audience is more sensitive to dueprocess and methods of participation than the panelists in West Germany or Switzerland

In summary, the applications of cooperative discourse method provided some evidence andreconfirmation that the theoretical expectations linked to this method can be met on the local,regional and also the national level. It is a valid instrument to elicit preferences and educatedresponses of citizens in a rather short time period. Evaluation studies by independent scholarsconfirmed that the objectives of fairness and competence were met in the Swiss as well asGerman case studies, i.e. the main interests and value groups were adequately represented and

(Crosby et al. 1986). Several community planners have experimented with citizen panels which were com-posed to reflect a representative sample of the population (cf. Kathlene and Martin 1991).


the outcomes of the process were judged as reasonable suggestions by technical experts(Buser 1995; Vorwerk and Kämper 1997; Roch 1997).

The US-experience has shown that it is necessary to have participants design the agenda andthe focus of the sessions before the actual meetings take place. While participants in Germanyand Switzerland were almost grateful and pleasantly surprised that someone made the effort topre-plan and structure a procedure for their participation, U.S. citizens distrust pre-fabricatedparticipation models and suspect hidden agendas with such an approach (Lynn 1986). Themain problem in Europe has been that organized stakeholder groups as well as elected publicofficials did not feel compelled to implement the results of the citizens‘ recommendations. Asmuch as they used the recommendations in the public arena to demonstrate their openness topublic input, the final decisions that were made in each of the cases varied remarkably fromthe suggestions by the citizen panels. All decision makers felt enlightened by the expressedpreferences of the affected population, but, due to political concerns and pressures, were un-able to implement the suggestions as stated by the citizens. Obviously the collected resourcesof value commitments and evidence were insufficient to have a decisive influence on the out-come of the political arena. The recommendations played a major role in the arena delibera-tions, they were commented by all stakeholders and discussed in public; the effect, however,was that they became one part of a “messy“ policy process among other competing sugges-tions.

What does this experience tells us about the political value of the cooperative discoursemethod? It depends on one‘s political position whether this deviation of the political practicefrom the citizens‘ recommendations is regarded as an expression of strength or weakness withrespect to democratic ideals. If one adheres to the concept of representative democracy, sug-gestions by citizens should not carry more weight than suggestions by any other group and aresupposed to help policy makers to be reflective and informed about potential value violations.If one believes in direct democracy, the lack of power and pressure that comes with the modelof citizen recommendations can be used as an argument against this method. They might pre-fer models that create direct “political“ channels into the core of decision making or mobilizepublic pressure to an extent that policy makers are forced to accept the recommendations. Co-operative discourse is based on the assumption that it enhances the political process of repre-sentative government and provides incentives for increased rationality, competence, and fair-ness in the legitimate decision process. Far from being an established planning tool, themethod of cooperative discourse has proven its viability and feasibility in different contextsand constitutes at least a serious alternative to other forms of public involvement.


3.4.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF A COOPERATIVE DISCOURSE

If one recalls the characteristics of the arena metaphor, different actors in society have differ-ent sets and quantities of resources available to mobilize political support and to influence theoutcome of the decision making process. Since resources are not divided equally among themain actors, the more powerful actors will be reluctant to enter a cooperative discourse inwhich all participants are entitled to the same rights, duties and privileges. How could onemotivate powerful interest groups to participate in a discourse and accept equal footing withother, often less powerful groups? If actors do not perceive any advantage in participating insuch an endeavor, how might they be convinced to take part? Communication among actorswith different portfolios of resources tends to reflect and often reinforce the existing powerstructures (Majone 1989).

Experience has shown that such asymmetric communication efforts did not reach their goalsin particular if they are publicly announced as efforts of participation or public involvement. Alarge body of literature exists for example on the pitfalls of hearings in which regulators andexperts take on a privileged position as panelists and the intervenors the position as "beggars"(Hadden 1989). Asymmetries like those experienced in public hearings are often transformedinto theatrical performances which are displayed to mobilize public support and extendedpress coverage. Hardly do they resolve any problem.

If a position of equal power within the discourse (outside of the discourse, the world is differ-ent) is desired, three major strategies are available that might help to persuade potential actorsto get involved in a rational discourse (cf. Bacow and Wheeler 1984: 193 and 126ff; Renn1992b) :

(1) Wait until actors are frustrated with the arena outcome. In arenas with actors having asimilar arsenal of social resources, the struggle continues over long time periods withoutany resolution in sight. The deadlock results in political paralysis as none of the actors isable to mobilize enough resources to force others to accept a compromise. In this situa-tion all actors lose unless "doing nothing" is in the strategic interest of one or more of theparties involved. The frustration over the immobility of the political system to respond tothe competing claims creates a favorable climate to engage in direct negotiations based onthe cooperative discourse model.

(2) Emphasize the openness and fairness of the process: Many actors are convinced that theirpoint of view would prevail in a social contest if they only had a fair chance to have their


arguments and claims presented to an unbiased audience. A cooperative discourse prom-ises such a fair forum and helps all parties to make their viewpoint known to other parties.

(3) Create social support for the discourse idea: This is probably the most powerful instru-ment for promoting a discourse. If participation in a discourse is associated with gainingmore social resources, and refusal to participate is linked to losing vital resources, actorsmay feel they can only win by participating in the discourse even if that implies to give uppower.

The discourse organizers should be willing to allocate sufficient clout for the recommenda-tions of the discourse participants. Although it is not possible to make the recommendationslegally binding, it is essential that all participants and the observers gain the impression thatthe recommendations are implemented if technically and politically feasible. Ignoring recom-mendations or changing them without a compelling reason is worse than having no discourseat all.

3.4.8 LESSONS FOR STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

What advice can we give to risk communicators of how to design and implement a risk com-munication program that incorporates the findings of past research on stakeholder involve-ment? The first lesson is to distinguish among the three levels of the debate. Nothing is moredetrimental and frustrating for all participants involved than addressing an audience who ex-pects a third level debate and is confronted with a detailed technical analysis of the issue. Therisk communicator should investigate the level of debate beforehand and design differentcommunication programs for each level.

Debates change frequently in nature and it is important to have the means available to switchfrom a technical, to an institutional and moral debate. Whereas technical expertise is vital onthe first level and evidence for institutional competence and openness on the second, there isno clear medium of communication available for the third level. A more general discoursefocused on value issues may be the appropriate tool. If the objective of such a debate is to rec-oncile existing conflicts, the involvement of an outside mediator may be helpful in setting theagenda and in identifying the concerns and values that the communicator is supposed to ad-dress.

When organizing arenas for stakeholder involvement, several criteria should be met. Amongthose criteria are:


a) Variability of options: Do the participants have the choice to select one option out of avariety of options that are all feasible in the specific situation? This is particularly impor-tant, if government agencies organize involvement processes, as the participants expectseveral options from which they are allowed to choose. If the purpose is only to convey amessage or to improve understanding among the constituencies, stakeholder participationvia discourse is not the right format.

b) Equity of exposure: Are all stakeholders or the respective constituency exposed in someway to the potential disadvantages of the proposed options? (so to avoid a distinctionbetween affected and indifferent stakeholders). If stakeholders are invited to participate,they should have an equal interest in the matter. Otherwise, people will question the le-gitimacy of peripheral stakeholders be present at the discourse table.

c) Personal experience: Do participants have some experience with the problem and do theyfeel competent to give recommendations after they are further educated about the problemand the remedial options? This is particular relevant if consumer issues are at stake. Par-ticipating stakeholders should be knowledgeable about major consumer issues and have abasic understanding of chemical risk management.

d) Personal relevance. Do participants judge the problem as serious enough to sacrifice theirtime to work on solutions? It might be frustrating for a governmental agency to invitestakeholders to a common problem-solving discourse, but most of the invitees do notshow up. The organizers have to make sure that all relevant stakeholders have an interestin and a commitment to the process.

e) Seriousness and openness of agency: Is the managerial level of the inviting agency will-ing to accept or at least carefully consider the recommendations of the discourse or doess/he pursue hidden agendas? Often, agency personal responsible for risk communicationare enthusiastic about stakeholder involvement, this enthusiasm is, however, not sharedby the upper management. Again, it is very frustrating for all participants, if the recom-mendations are not taken seriously by the decision-makers.

Given these notes of caution, it is important to acknowledge that stakeholder participation hasbeen a valuable asset for more effective risk management and improved risk communication.In most cases, it has been justified to bring representatives of stakeholder groups together andinitiate a common dialogue or discourse. This is particularly necessary if highly controversialrisks are at stake. Organizing a common platform for mutual exchange of ideas, arguments,and concerns does not suffice, however, in order to assure fair and competent results. Mixing


all these knowledge and value sources into one, implies the danger that each group trespassesits legitimate boundary of expertise. If perceptions replace assessments and the rhetoric ofpowerful agents replace value input by those who have to bear the risks the discourse goesinto the wrong direction (Majone 1989). An organizational model is to be used that assignsspecific roles to each contributor but makes sure, at the same time, that each contribution isembedded in a dialogue setting that guarantees mutual exchange of arguments and informa-tion, provides all participants with opportunities to insert and challenge claims, and to createactive understanding among all participants (Webler 1995). The model of cooperative dis-course is one among other candidates that has been designed to meet that challenge.


4. REFERENCES

Adams, W.C. 1986: Whose Lives Count?: TV Coverage of Natural Disasters. Communica-tion, 36, No.2 (Spring), 113-122

Allport, G.W., 1935: Attitudes. Handbook of Social Psychology . Clark University Press:Worcester, MA), pp.798-844

Anderson, C. 1983: Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: Whenweak data lead to unshakeable beliefs. Environmental Social Psychology 19:93-198

Bacow, L.S. and Wheeler, M. 1984: Environmental Dispute Resolution. Plenum: New York

Barber, B. 1983: The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick. NJ: Rutgers University Press

Beck, U., 1986: Die Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp:Frankfurt am Main

Blair, E.H. 1987: Discussion on Responsibilities of Risk Communication. In: J.C. Davies,V.T. Covello, and F.W. Allen (eds.), Risk Communication. The Conservation Foundation:Washington, D.C., 35-38

Burns, T.R. and Überhorst, R., 1988: Creative Democracy: Systematic Conflict Resultion andPolicymaking in a World of High Science and Technology. Praeger: New York

Chaiken, S. und Stangor, C. 1987: Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psy-chology, 38, S. 575-630

Covello, V.T. 1983: The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review. Techno-logical Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 285-297

Covello, V.T.; Slovic P. and von Winterfeldt, D., (October) 1986: Risk Communication: AReview of the Literature, Risk Abstracts , 3, No. 4, 172-182

Covello, V.T. and Allen, F. 1988: Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.

Covello, V.T.; Slovic, P.; and von Winterfeldt, D., 1988: Disaster and Crisis Communica-tions: Findings and Implications for Research and Policy. In: H. Jungermann; R.E. Kaspersonand P.M. Wiedemann (eds.), Risk Communication . Research Center KFA: Jülich, pp. 131-154

Crosby, N.; Kelly, J.M.; and Schaefer, P., 1986: Citizen Panels: A New Approach to CitizenParticipation. Public Administration Review, 46, 170-178

DeFleur, M.L. and Ball-Rokeach, S.,1982: Theories of Mass Communication. 4th edition.Longman: New York


Dienel, P.C., 1978: Die Planungszelle. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen

Dienel, P.C., 1989: Contributing to Social Decision Methodology: Citizen Reports on Tech-nological Projects. In: C. Vlek and G. Cvetkovich (eds.), Social Decision Methodology forTechnologial Projects. Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, pp. 133-150

Dietz , T. and Rycroft, R., 1987: The Risk Professionals. Russell Sage Foundation: New York

Diez, T.; Stern, P.C.; and Rycroft, R.W. 1989: Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation ofResources: The Case of Environmental Risk. Sociological Forum , 4, 47-69

Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A., 1982: Risk and Culture. An Essay on the Selection of Tech-nological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press: Berkeley

Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S.; and Wood, W., 1981: An Attribution Analysis of Persuasion. In:J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd (eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research. Erl-baum: Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 37-62.

Eagly, A.H.und Chaiken, S., 1984: Cognitive Theories of Persuasion. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology. 17, 268-359

Fazio, R.H.; Zanna, M.P.; and Cooper, J., 1977: Dissonance and Self-perception: An Inte-grative View of Each Theory's Proper Domain of Application. Experimental Social Psycholo-gy, 13, 464-479.

Fessenden-Raden, J.; Fitchen, J.M.; and Heath, J.S., 1987: Providing Risk Information inCommunities: Factors Influencing What Is Heard and Accepted. Science, Technology, andHuman Values , 12, No. 3 and 4 (Summer/Fall), 94-101

Festinger, L., 1957: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press: Stanford

Fiorino, D.J., 1989: Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, 9, No.3, 293-299

Fiorino, D.J., 1990: Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of InstitutionalMechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values , 15, No.2 (Spring), 226-243

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, J., 1975: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction toTheory and Research. Addison Wesley: Reading, MA

Fisher, A., 1987: Risk Communication: Getting Out the Message about Radon. EPA Journal,13, No. 9, 27-29

Frey, D., 1986: Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology , 19, 41-80

Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., 1985: Three Types of Risk Assessment: MethodologicalAnalysis, in: C. Whipple and V.T. Covello (eds.), Risk Analysis in the Private Sector. Plenum:New York


Gould, L.C.; Gardner, G.T.; DeLuca, D.R.; Tiemann, A.; Doob, L.W.; and Stolwijk, J.A.J.,1988: Perceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits. Russel Sage Foundation: New York

Habermas, J., 1971: Knowledge and Human Interests. Beacon Press: Boston

Habermas, J., 1984: Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalizationof Society. Beacon Press: Boston

Höfele, W.; Renn, O.; and Erdmann, H., 1990: Risiko, Unsicherheit und Undeutlichkeit. In:W.Höfele (ed.), Energiesysteme im Übergang - Unter den Bedingungen der Zukunft. Poller:Landsberg/Lech, pp. 373-423

Hance, J.; Chess, C.; and Sandman, P.M., 1988: Improving Dialogue with Communities: ARisk Communication Manual for Government. Report to the New Jersey Department of Envi-ronmental Protection, Division of Science and Research. NJ-DEP: Trenton

Heesacker, M.; Petty, R.E.; and Cacioppo, J.T, 1983: Field Dependence and Attitude Change:Source Credibility can Alter Persuasion by Affecting Message-Relevant Thinking. Personalityand Social Psychology , 51, 401-413.

Hovland, C. J., 1948: Social Communication. Proceedings of the American PhilosophicalSociety , 92 (), 371-375

Hovland, C.J. and Weiss, W., 1967: The Influence of Source Credibility on CommunicationEffectiveness. In: R.L. Rosnow and E.J. Robinson (eds), Experiments in Persuasion. Aca-demic Press: New York, pp. 9-24

Janis, J.L. and Mann, L., 1977: Decision Making. A Psychological Analysis of Conflict,Choice, and Commitment . Praeger: New York

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., 1979: Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.Econometrica , 47, No. 2, 263-291

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., 1974: Judgment under Uncertainty. Heuristics and Biases.Science , 185, 1124-1131

Kasperson, R.E., 1986: Six Propositions for Public Participation and Their Relevance for RiskCommunication. Risk Analysis, 6, No. 3, 275-281

Kasperson, R.E., 1987: Public Perceptions of Risk and Their Implications for Risk Communi-cation and Management. In: S.R. McCally (ed), Environmental Health Risks: Assessment andManagement . University of Waterloo Press: Waterloo, pp. 287-296

Kasperson, R.E. and Kasperson, J.X., 1983: Determining the Acceptability of Risk: Ethicaland Policy Issues. In: J.T. Rogers and D.V. Bates (eds.), Assessment and Perception of Risk toHuman Health , Conference Proceedings. Royal Society of Canada: Ottawa, pp. 135-155

Kasperson, R.E. and Palmlund, I., 1988: Evaluating Risk Communication. In: V.T. Covello;D.B. McCallum; and M.T. Pavlova (eds.), Effective Risk Communication. The Role and Re-


sponsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum: New York, pp. 143-158

Kasperson, R E.; Renn, O.; Slovic P.; Brown, H.S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Kasperson, J.X.; andRatick, S., 1988: The Social Amplification of Risk. A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis,8, No.2 (August), pp. 177-187

Kasperson, R.E. and Stallen, P.M., 1991: Introduction. In: R.E. Kasperson and P.M. Stallen,Communicating Risk to the Public. Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, pp. 1-11

Kasperson R.E. and Kasperson, J.X., 1996: The social amplification and attenuation of risk,Annals of the American Political and Social Sciences, 545, 95-105

Katz, D., Gatek, A., Kahn, R.L. and Barton, E. (1975): Bureaucratic encounters. Institute forSocial Research, Ann Harbour, MI: University of Michigan

Keeney, R. and von Winterfeldt, D., 1986: Improving Risk Communication. Risk Analysis, 6,No.4, 417-424

Keeney, R.L.; Renn, O.; and von Winterfeldt, D., 1987: Structuring West Germany's EnergyObjectives. Energy Policy, 15, No. 4 (August), 352-362

Kemp, R., 1985: Planning, Political Hearings, and the Politics of Discourse. In: J. Forester(ed.), Critical Theory and Public Life. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA

Kitschelt, H., 1980: Kernenergiepolitik. Arena eines gesellschaftlichen Konflikts. Campus:Frankfurt and New York

Klinke, A. and Renn, O. 2000: Precautionary Principle and Discursive Strategies: Classifyingand Managing Risk. Journal of Risk Research, 3, (in print)

Klinke, A. and Renn, O. 1999: Prometheus Unbound. Challenges of Risk Evaluation, RiskClassifikation, and Risk Management. Working Paper No. 153 of the Center of TechnologyAssessment. Stuttgart: Center of Technology Assessment

Köcher, R., 1986: Bloodhounds or Missionaries: Role Definitions of German and BritishJournalists. European Journal of Communication , 1, 43-64

Kraft, M. 1988: Evaluating Technology Through Public Participation: The Nuclear WasteDisposal Controversy. In: M.E. Kraft and N.J. Vig (eds.), Technology and Politics. Duke Uni-versity Press: Durham, N.C., pp. 253-277

Lasswell. H.D., 1948: The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In: L. Brison(ed.), The Communication of Ideas. New York, pp. 32-51

Lee, T.R., 1986: Effective Communication of Information about Chemical Hazards. The Sci-ence of the Total Environment , 51, 149-183


Lichtenberg, J. and MacLean, D., 1988: The Role of the Media in Risk Communication. In: H.Jungermann; R.E. Kasperson; and P.M. Wiedemann (eds.), Risk Communication. ResearchCenter KFA: Jülich, pp. 33-48

Lipset, S.M. and Schneider, W., 1983: The Confidence Gap. Business, Labor, and Govern-ment, in the Public Mind . The Free Press: New York

Lowry, S. and DeFleur, M.L., 1983: Milestones in Mass Communication Research: MediaEffects. Longman: New York and London

Luhmann, N. 1980: Trust and Power: New York: Wiley

Luhmann, N., 1986:…kologische Kommunikation. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen

Lynn, F.M., 1986: The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessing and Regulating Environ-mental Risks. Science, Technology and Human Values , 11, No. 2 (Spring), 40-50

Majone, G., 1979: Process and Outcome in Regulatory Decision-Making. American Behav-ioral Scientist, 22, No. 5 (May-June), 561-583

Matejko, A.J. 1988: the sociotechnical perspective on trust at work. Speyrer Arbeitshefte,86:1-251

Mazur, A., 1984: The Journalist and Technology: Reporting about Love Canal and Three MileIsland. Minerva , 22, 45-66

Mazur, A., 1987: Putting Radon on the Public's Risk Agenda. Science, Technology, and Hu-man Values , 12, No. 3 and 4 (Summer/Fall), 86-93

McCallum, D., 1987: Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disiease: Cholesterol, Salt, and HighBlood Pressure. In: J.C. Davies, V.T. Covello, and F.W. Allen (eds.), Risk Communication.The Conservation Foundation: Washington, D.C., pp. 67-70

McCarthy, T., 1975: Translator's Introduction. In: J. Habermans, Legitimation Crisis. BeaconPress: Boston

McCombs. M.E. and Shaw, D.L., 1972: The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. PublicOpinion Quarterly, 36, No. 2, 126-187

McGuire, W.J., 1985: Attitude and Attitude Change. In: G. Lindzey und E. Aronson (eds),Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Random House: New York, pp. 223-346

Meinefeld, W., 1977: Einstellung und soziales Handeln. Rowohlt: Reinbek

Midden, C., 1988: Credibility and Risk Communication. Manuscript for the InternationalWorkshop on Risk Communication, October, 17-21 1988. Research Center KFA: Jülich

Münch, R., 1982: Basale Soziologie: Soziologie der Politik. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen

National Research Council 1989: Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press:Washington, D.C.


National Research Council 1996: Understanding Risk. Informing Decisions in a DemocraticSociety. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.

Nelkin, D. and Pollak, M., 1979: Public Participation in Technological Decisions: Reality orGrand Illusion. Technology Review , 9 (September), 55-64

O'Riordan, T., 1983: The Cognitive and Political Dimension of Risk Analysis. EnvironmentalPsychology, 3, 345-354

Otway, H. and Wynne, B., 1989: Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox. Risk Analysis, 9, No. 2, 141-145

Parsons, T.E., 1963: On the Concept of Political Power. In: Proceedings of the AmericanPhilosophical Society, 17 (June), 352-403

Peltu, M., 1985: The Role of Communications Media. In: H. Otway and M. Peltu (eds.),Regulating Industrial Risks. Butterworth: London, pp. 128-148

Peltu, M., 1989: Media Reporting of Risk Information: Uncertainties and the Future. In: H.Jungermann; R.E. Kasperson; and P.M. Wiedemann (eds), Risk Communication (ResearchCenter KFA: Jülich), pp.11-32

Perrow, C., 1984: Normal Accidents : Living with High Risk Technologies. Basic Books:New York

Peters, H.P., 1984: Entstehung, Verarbeitung und Verbreitung von Wissenschaftsnachrichtenam Beispiel von 20 Forschungseinrichtungen , Report Jül-Spez-1940. Research Center KFA:Jülich

Peters, H.P., 1986: Public Opinion as a Channel of Communication between Science andOther Parts of Society. Paper presented at the 11th World Congress of Sociology. New Delhi:August 18-22, 1986

Peters, H.P., 1990: Der massenmediale Umgang mit technischen Risiken. Arbeiten zur Risi-kokommunikation, Vol. 14. Research Center KFA: Jülich, June 1990

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, E., 1986: The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Ad-vances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205

Pinsdorf, M.K., 1987: Communicating When Your Company Is Under Siege. LexingtonBooks: Lexington

Plough, A. and Krimsky, S., 1987: The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Socialand Political Context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 78-85

Pollak, M., 1985: Public Participation. In: H. Otway and M. Peltu (eds.), Regulating IndustrialRisk . Butterworths: London, pp. 76-94

Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 1997:Final Report, Vol 1: Framework for environmental health risk assessment. Washington D.C.


Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 1997:Final Report, Vol 2: Risk Assessment and Risk management in regulatory Decision Making.Washington D.C.

Raymond, C.A., 1985: Risk in the Press: Conflicting Journalistic Ideologies. In: D. Nelkin(ed.), The Language of Risk. Sage: Beverly Hills, pp. 97-133

Rayner, S., 1987: Risk and Relativism in Science for Policy, in: V. T. Covello and B.B. John-son (eds.), The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk . Reidel: Dordrecht

Rayner, S. and Cantor, R., 1987: How Fair is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to SocietalTechnology Choice. Risk Analysis, 7, 3-13

Rayner, S., 1988: Muddling Through Metaphors to Maturity: A Commentary on Kasperson etal., The Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis , 8, No. 2 , 201-204

Rempel, J.K.and Holmes, J.G., 1986: How Do I Trust Thee? Psychology Today, 2 (February),28-34.

Renn, O., 1983: Technology, Risk, and Public Perception. Angewandte Systemanalyse/ Ap-plied Systems Analysis, 4, No. 2, 50-65

Renn, O., 1984: Risikowahrnehmung der Kernenergie Campus: Frankfurt and New York

Renn, O., 1986a: Akzeptanzforschung: Technik in der gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung.Chemie in unserer Zeit, 2, 44-52

Renn, O., 1986b: Decision Analytic Tools for Resolving Uncertainty in the Energy Debate.Nuclear Engineering and Design , 93, No. 2 and 3, 167-180

Renn, O., 1988: Risk Communication: Concepts, Strategies, and Pitfalls. In: Air PollutionControl Association (ed.), Managing Environmental Risks. Proceedings of the APCA SpecialConference in Washington D.C., October 1987 (APCA: Washington, D.C.,), 99-117

Renn, O., 1990: Risk Perception and Risk Management: A Review. Risk Abstracts , 7, No. 1(March), 1-9

Renn, O., 1991: Risk Communication and the Social Amplification of Risk. In: R. Kaspersonand P.J. Stallen (eds.), Communicating Risk to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dor-drecht, pp. 287-324

Renn, O., 1997: Mental Health, Stress and Risk Perception: Insights from Psychological Re-search. In: J.V. Lake, G.R. Bock and G. Cardew (eds.), Health Impacts of Large Releases ofRadionuclides. Ciba Foundation Symposium 203, London (Wiley 1997), 205-231

Renn, O., 1998: The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliability, Engineering &System Safety, Vol. 59, 1 (January), 49-52

Renn, O. and Swaton, E., 1984: Psychological and Sociological Approaches to Study RiskPerception. Environment International, 10, 557-575


Renn, O.; Stegelmann, H.U.; Albrecht, G.; Kotte, U.; and Peters, H.P., 1984: An EmpiricalInvestigation of Citizens' Preferences Among Four Energy Scenarios. Technological Fore-casting and Social Change , 26, No. 1, 11-46

Renn, O.; Albrecht, G.; Kotte, U.; Peters, H.P.; and Stegelmann, H.U., 1985: Sozialverträgli-che Energiepolitik. Ein Gutachten für die Bundesregierung. HTV Editon "Technik und sozia-ler Wandel": Munich

Renn, O.; Goble, R.; Levine, D.; Rakel, H.; and Webler, T., 1989: Citizen Participation forSludge Management, Final Report to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-tion. CENTED, Clark University: Worcester

Renn, O. and Levine, D., 1991: Credibility and Trust in Risk Communication. In: R. Kasper-son and P.J. Stallen (eds.), Communicating Risk to the Public. Kluwer Academic Publishers:Dordrecht, pp. 175-218

Rokeach, M., 1969: Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values . California University Press: Berkeley andSan Francisco

Rosnow, R.L. and E.J. Robinson, E.J. (eds.), 1967: Experiments in Persuasion. AcademicPress: New York

Ross. L.D., 1977: The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attri-bution Process. In: L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10.Random House: New York, pp. 173-220

Rourke, F.E., Free, L. and watts, W. (1976): Trust and Confidence in the American System.Washington, DC: Potomac Assoc.

Rowe, W.D. 1977: An Anatomy of Risk. Wiley: New York

Rubin, D.M., 1987: How the News Media Reported on Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.Communication , 37, No.3 (Summer), 42-57

Salcedo, R.N; Read, H.; Evans, J.F. and Kong, A.C., 1974: A Successful Informations Cam-paign on Pesticides. Journalistic Quarterly , 51, 91-95

Sandman, P.M.; Weinstein, N.D.; and Klotz, M.L. 1987: Public Response to the Risk fromGeological Radon. Communication , 37, No.3 (Summer), 93-108

Seiderberg, P.C., 1984: The Politics of Meaning: Power and Explanation in the Constructionof Social Reality. University of Arizona Press: Tuscon

Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W., 1949: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. TheUniversity of Illinois Press: Urbana

Sheridan, T.B. 1985: Trustwothiness of command and control systems. Unpublished Manu-script. Cambridge, MA: MIT


Shoemaker, P.J., 1987: Mass Communication by the Book: A Review of 31 Texts. Communi-cation , 37, No.3 (Summer), 109-133

Short, J.F., 1984: The Social Fabric of Risk: Toward the Social Transformation of RiskAnalysis. American Sociological Review , 49, 711-725

Singer, E. and Endremy, P., 1987: Reporting Hazards: Their Benefits and Costs. Communica-tion , 37, No.3 (Summer), 10-26

Slovic, P., 1987: "Perception of Risk," Science , 236, No. 4799, 280-285

Slovic, P.; Fischhoff, B.; and Lichtenstein, S., 1981: Perceived Risk: Psychological Factorsand Social Implications. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society, A376 (Royal Society: London),pp. 17-34

Sood, R.; Stockdale, G.; and Rogers E.M., 1987: How the News Media Operate in NaturalDisasters. Communication , 37, No.3 (Summer), 27-41

Tetlock, P.E. 1986: a value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Personality and SocialPsychology 48:819-827

Thomas. L.M., 1987: Why We Must Talk About Risks. In: J.C. Davies, V.T. Covello, andF.W. Allen (eds.), Risk Communication. The Conservation Foundation: Washington, D.C.,pp. 19-25

Turoff, M., 1970: The Design of a Policy Delphi, Technological Forecasting and SocialChange , 2, No. 2, 84-98

Tyler, T.R. 1984: The role perceived injustice in defendants’ evaluations of their courtroomexperience. Law Sociology Review 18:51-74

von Winterfeldt, D., 1987: Value Tree Analysis: An Introduction and an Application to Off-shore Oil Drilling. In: P.R. Kleindorfer and H.C. Kunreuther (eds.), Insuring and ManagingHazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond. Springer: Berlin, FRG, pp. 439-377

von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W., 1986: Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA

WBGU 1998 : (German Scientific Advisory Council on Global Change 1999): Welt im Wan-del. Strategien zur Bewältigung globaler Umweltrisiken. Jahresgutachten. Berlin: Springer.

Webler, T.; Levine, D.; Rakel, H.; and Renn, O., "The Group Delphi: A Novel Attempt atReducing Uncertainty," Technological Forecasting and Social Change (in press)

Wicker, A.W., 1979: Attitudes vs Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Behavioral Re-sponses to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues , 22, 41-78

Wilkins, L. and Patterson, P., 1987: Risk Analysis and the Construction of News. Communi-cation 37, No.3 (Summer), 80-92


Zimmerman, R., 1987a: A Process Framework for Risk Communication. Science, Technol-ogy, and Human Values, 12, No. 3 and 4 (Summer/Fall), 131-137


ANNEX II

RISK COMMUNICATIONRESOURCE BOOK

COMMUNICATING WITH CONSUMERSABOUT CHEMICAL RISKS

Philip C.R. Gray and Peter M. Wiedemann

1. .................................................................................................. Introduction................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Analysis of Risk Communication Manuals ................................................... 2

1.1.1 .............................................................................................. Categorisation................................................................................................................... 2

1.1.2 Description of Risk Communication Manuals ............................................ 31.2 A Note on Risk Perception ........................................................................... 4

2 Risk communication manuals ...................................................................... 12.1 List of Manuals Covered by Category .......................................................... 1

2.1.1 .............................................................. General Risk Communication Guidance.................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1.2 .................Specific Risk Communication Guidance: Provision of Information3

2.1.3 Specific Risk Communication Guidance: Emergency Communication......... 3

2.1.4 Specific Risk Communication Guidance: Participation and Dialogue .......... 42.2 Risk Communicatio Manuals .................................................................... 4


2.2.1 ............................................................. General Risk Communication Guidance.................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Specific Risk Communication Guidance: Provision of Information............. 30

2.2.3 Specific Risk Communication Guidance: Emergency Communication....... 36

2.2.4 Specific Risk Communication Guidance: Participation and Dialogue......... 43

3. Case Studies ............................................................................................ 493.1 List of Cases Covered by Category........................................................ 50

3.2 Case Study Collections ........................................................................... 513.3 Case Study Examples.............................................................................. 54

4. Major International Programmeson Risk Communication ............................................................................ 1

4.1 WHO-Europe Environmental andHealth Risks Communication Programme............................................... 1

4.2 EMF Risk Project: Risk Communication.................................................. 14.3 Trustnet....................................................................................................... 24.4 WHO Health Communication Network ..................................................... 2

5. Addresses and Internet Sites.................................................................... 15.1 Relevant Organisations ............................................................................. 15.2 Website Reviews........................................................................................ 4

5.2.1 Advice on Risk Communication and Risk Management ............................... 4

5.2.2 Information for Consumers, Communities and Neighbours.......................... 7

6. Abbreviations ............................................................................................... 9

7. References................................................................................................... 9

Risk Communication Resource Book91

1. INTRODUCTION

This resource book provides an overview of existing sources of advice and information oncommunication with consumers about chemical risks. It focuses on communication betweengovernments or manufacturing industry, NGOs representing consumer interests, and consum-ers. The main sorts of risks which will be considered are direct health risks, and risks to theenvironment arising in production, product use, or waste disposal.

Communication with consumers occurs in multiple, complex ways, not always intended orcontrollable. It is particularly important to realize that people obtain information and formviews not only in their role as consumers or purchasers of products, but also as citizens,newspaper readers, neighbors of a plant, employees and so on. For this reason it is importantfirst of all to take a broad view of risk communication with consumers, before narrowing in onconsumer-specific aspects. Each section of the review will therefore cover sources dealingwith risk communication in general and in other relevant contexts, as well as material morespecifically relevant to consumer communication.

The main section of the resource book (Chapter 2) consists of brief summaries of the mostimportant and relevant manuals and key reports on risk communication. These summaries areorganised into various groups, which are explained in the next section. A table at the begin-ning of the Chapter provides an overview of the manuals covered.

The following Chapter (3) is a guide to selected case studies on risk communication.

Chapter 4 provides a brief listing of some major international programmes of work on riskcommunication, both completed and ongoing. Finally, Chapter 5 contains the addresses ofrelevant organizations, as well as an annotated list of useful resources in the Internet – in-cluding both information on risk communication itself, and examples of the opportunities of-fered by the new media to communicate risk information.


1.1 ANALYSIS OF RISK COMMUNICATION MANUALS

1.1.1 CATEGORISATION

The heart of the resource book consists of an annotated bibliography of risk communicationmanuals. "Manual" is interpreted as meaning primarily practical guides and handbooks.However a limited number of key reports and research papers are also included, where theseprovide essential insights or background information, often with important practical implica-tions, that significantly augment the handbooks. As far as possible the materials are selected tobe accessible to non-specialists.

The manuals are classified as follows. In addition to a section on General risk communicationadvice, there are three main categories: Information Provision, Emergency Communication,and Participation and Dialogue. This categorization is closely related to the classic distinctionbetween the functions of risk communication as the provision of information, the encourage-ment of appropriate behaviour in relation to a hazard, issuing emergency warnings, and par-ticipation or joint decision-making. However, the 'pure' provision of information and the en-couragement or enabling of safe behaviour overlap and are often hard to separate clearly inpractice2 (especially for consumer products), so these two functions are both covered here inthe category "Information Provision".

Within the General category, most of the manuals are "cross-cutting", i.e. are relevant tocommunication with more than one target group and to several (or all) risk communicationfunctions. They are hence categorized pragmatically here according to the user group or read-ership which they are aimed at: General Users, Government and Industry. A fourth sub-category here is the subject of Issues Management (which could also be treated as a completecategory of its own). This is a much broader topic than risk communication, which providesextremely useful insights and practical guidelines by setting risk communication in the overallcontext of organizational strategy and responses to the organizational environment.

Each of the three remaining categories are sub-divided into manuals providing General Guid-ance, those referring to communication with Communities and Neighbors (as mentionedabove), and those which directly concern communication with Consumers.

2 With the exception of the area of emotive advertising and campaigns (e.g. against smoking or drinking while driving), which is

clearly more than neutral information provision. However this area will not be included in this review.


1.1.2 DESCRIPTION OF RISK COMMUNICATION MANUALS

Each risk communication manual is described according to a fixed scheme which is explainedbelow. A similar scheme is also used in the case study section.

The scheme begins with a commentary on the manual’s most important messages, its signifi-cance for (chemical or general) risk communication, and so on, and a description or listing ofits contents3. The remaining sections of the scheme are as follows:

1. Background refers to the direct or indirect motivation for the risk communication manual,where known, e.g. risk communication problems in a given area, or a new law. Where the"author" is an organization which employed consultants to write the manual, the latter arenamed if known.

2. Intended Readership: This section describes to whom the manual is addressed, i.e. thecommunicators who are most likely to use the manual - e.g. government officials (not to beconfused with the target audience or communication partners for any subsequent riskcommunication).

3. Type of Risk: The risk source, whether a substance, product, plant, activity… For commu-nication about chemical risks it is interesting to note, among other things, whether the riskis related to production processes, or to product characteristics, product use or disposal.

4. Type of Situation: Much of risk communication concerns "crises" of one kind or another.We differentiate however between actual emergencies – where planning and speed of reac-tion are critical elements – and "normal" risk communication, which is everything else. Inrelation to production, this difference corresponds to "normal operation" compared to"emergencies". In terms of products, it relates to "normal use" compared to "product re-call". In practice there is often a grey area between the two extremes, for instance in thecase of the discovery of contaminated land.

5. Special focus: This point indicates the special focus of the manual in terms of communica-tion tasks or issues. This is intended to provide a quick hint as to what the book is aboutand why it might be particularly worth reading. This section supplements the more gen-eral, comprehensive evaluation under point 7. Examples of a manual's special focus might

3 Chapters such as ”Introduction” are omitted from listings.


be "explaining technical aspects of EMF to consumers", "interacting with the media", "de-signing warning labels" or "running a mediation process".

6. Empirical foundation: This indicates what specific kind of basis there is for the advicecontained in the manual. This may be e.g. expert judgement, case studies, RC/ RP litera-ture, other literature, or a survey.

7. Relevance: This section indicates the relevance or value of the information in the manualfor the main aspects of communication with consumer about chemicals. These aspects orcommunication functions are:− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations− Providing information about products/ substances− Encouraging safe product use etc.− Crisis communication about products/ substances− Conducting dialogue, increasing participation and resolving conflicts (about products/

substances)

The relevance of the manual for each of the functions is rated on a scale from A (very rele-vant) to C (slightly relevant). No rating means that the manual is not relevant at all to the par-ticular function.

1.2 A NOTE ON RISK PERCEPTION

In order to provide a clear focus for this review, it does not cover the subject of risk percep-tion explicitly. However, for those who wish to learn more about this topic, many of the pub-lications described in this report do contain useful information. These are listed below, to-gether with selected additional publications for the more interested.

(1) Publications covered in this report:

− Hance, Chess and Sandman (1988). Improving Dialogue with Communities: A RiskCommunication Manual for Government. Environmental Communication Research Pro-gram Rutgers University, New Jersey.

− Soby, B.A., Simpson, A.C.D and Ives, D.P. (1993). Integrating public and scientificjudgements into a tool kit for managing food-related risks, Stage 1: Literature review andfeasibility study. Research Report No. 16, Centre for Environmental and Risk Mana-gement (CERM), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK.


− UK Department of Health (c. 1998). Communicating About Risks to Health: Pointers toGood Practice. UK Department of Health, London.

− Wiedemann, P.M., Carius, R., Henschel, C. et al. (in press, 2000) Risikommunikation fürUnternehmen: Ein Leitfaden (A Guide to Risk Communication for Companies). VereinDeutscher Ingenieure. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf. [In German].

(2) Additional key publications

− Royal Society Study Group (1992). Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management. Chapter5: Risk Perception. Prepared by N. Pidgeon, C. Hood, D. Jones, B. Turner and R. Gibson.The Royal Society, London. pp. 89-134.

− Slovic, P. (1992). Risk perception: reflections on the pychometric paradigm. In: S. Krim-sky and D. Golding (eds.) (1992). Social Theories of Risk. Praeger Publishers, WestportCT, USA. pp. 117-152.

− Slovic, P.(1987). Perception of risk. Science 236, pp. 280-285.

Risk Communication Resource Book 1

2. RISK COMMUNICATION MANUALS

2.1 LIST OF MANUALS COVERED BY CATEGORY

2.1.1 GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE

2.1.1.1 GENERAL RC GUIDANCE: ALL USERS

Authors Title/ ref

MANUALS ON RISK COMMUNICATION

Covello, V.T. and Allen,F.W. (1988)

Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. OPA-87-020. April 1988. USEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (leaflet)

Gray, P.C.R., Stern, R.M.and Biocca, M. (eds.)(1998)

Communicating about Risks to Environment and Health in Europe. Publishedon behalf of the World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe in col-laboration with the Centre for Environmental and Risk Management, Universityof East Anglia, UK.

Lundgren, R.E. (1994) Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety,and Health Risks

Mulligan, J., McCoy, E.,Griffiths, A. (1998).

Principles of Communicating Risks. The Macleod Institue for EnvironmentalAnalysis, Calgary, Alberta.

Wiedemann, P. and Schütz,H. (2000).

Developing Dialogue-Based Risk Communication Programmes. Studies on RiskCommunication 79, Research Centre Jülich, Germany.

MANUALS ON ISSUES MANAGEMENT

Affleck, M.E. (1998). RadarScan Issues Management. Issue Action Publications, Leesburg, Virginia.

Sopow, E. (1994) The Critical Issues Audit. Issue Action Publications, Leesburg VA.

Susskind, L. and Field, P.(1996)

Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Dis-putes. Free Press, New York.

KEY REPORTS ON RISK COMMUNICATION

Bennett, P. and Calman, K.(1999).

Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gutteling, J.M. and Wieg-man, O. (1996).

Exploring Risk Communication. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

National Research Council(1989)

Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington., D.C.

National Research CouncilCommittee on Risk Char-acterization (1996)

Understanding Risk. Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. P.C. Sternand H.V. Fineberg, eds. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

Risk Communication for Chemical Products – An OECD Background Paper 2

2.1.1.2 GENERAL RC GUIDANCE: GOVERNMENT & GOVERNMENT AGENCY USERS

Agency for Toxic Sub-stances and Disease Regis-try (ATSDR) (1997)

A Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices.

ATSDR Website: http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/primer.html#FACTORS

Chess, C. (1988) Encouraging Effective Risk Communication: Suggestions for Agency Manage-ment. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Divi-sion of Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey.

Chess, C. (1992) How to plan for Communication with the Public: Development of a Seminar forEnvironmental Managers. Environmental Communication Research Program,Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Jersey, pp. 45.

Chess, Hance, Sandman(1988)

Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide for Government RiskCommunication. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-tion, Division of Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey.

Covello, V.T. McCallum,D.B. and Pavlova, M. (eds.)(1989a)

Effective Risk Communication: The role and responsibility of governmental andnongovernmental organisations. New York and London: Plenum Press.

Covello, V.T. McCallum,D.B. and Pavlova, M.(1989b)_

Principles and Guidelines for Effective Risk Communication. Chapter 2 in:Covello, V.T. McCallum, D.B. and Pavlova, M. (1989) (eds.) Effective RiskCommunication: The role and responsibility of governmental and nongovern-mental organisations. New York and London: Plenum Press.

Hance, Chess and Sandman(1988)

Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Manual forGovernment. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,Division of Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey.

ILGRA (Inter-Departmen-tal Liaison Group on RiskAssessment) (UK) (1998)

Risk Communication: A Guide to Regulatory Practice. Health and Safety Ex-ecutive, London.

UK Department of Health(c. 1998).

Communicating About Risks to Health: Pointers to Good Practice.

UK Department of Health, London.

2.1.1.3 GENERAL RC GUIDANCE: INDUSTRY USERS

Covello, V.T., Sandman,P.M. and Slovic, P. (1988)

Risk Communication, Risk Statistics and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for PlantManagers. Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.

Wiedemann, P.M., Carius,R., Henschel, C. et al. (inpress, 2000)

Risikommunikation für Unternehmen: Ein Leitfaden (A Guide to Risk Communi-cation for Companies). Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf.[In German]


2.1.2 SPECIFIC RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: PROVISION OF INFORMATION

2.1.2.1 PROVISION OF INFORMATION: GENERAL

See Section 1 2.1.2.2 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS

American Chemical Society(ACS) (1988)

Chemical Risk Communication: Preparing for Community Interest in ChemicalRelease Data. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., October 1988,pp. 28.

Chemical Manufacturers'Association (1988)

Title III Community Awareness Workbook. CMA, Washington, D.C.

Wiedemann, P., Schütz, H.and Brüggemann, A.(1999).

Leitfaden zum Umgang mit Problemen elektromagnetischer elder in den Kom-munen (Guidelines on dealing with EMF problems in municipalities). BMU,Berlin/ Research Centre Jülich, Jülich. [In German]

2.1.2.3 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS

Soby, B.A., Simpson, A.,Ives, D.P., Hedegard,J.B.O. (1992)

Consumer Attitudes to Risk and the Effectiveness of Home and Leisure SafetyCampaigns in the European Community. Research Report No. 15. Centre forEnvironmental Risk, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East An-glia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.

Soby, B.A., Simpson,A.C.D and Ives, D.P.(1993)

Integrating public and scientific judgements into a tool kit for managing food-related risks, Stage 1: Literature review and feasibility study. Research ReportNo. 16, Centre for Environmental and Risk Management (CERM), School ofEnvironmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK.

Wogalter, M.S., DeJoy,D.M. and Laughery, K.R.(eds.) (1999)

Warnings and Risk Communication. Taylor and Francis, London/ Philadelphia,pp. 365.

2.1.3 SPECIFIC RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION

2.1.3.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION: GENERAL

Crisis Management Fearn-Banks, K. (1996a) Crisis Communications: A Case book Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Mahwah, New Jersey. Mitroff, I. and Pearson, C.(1993)

Crisis Management: A Diagnostic Guide for Improving Your Organization'sCrisis-Preparedness. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.


2.1.3.2 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION WITH COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS


Crisis Management Planning for the Chemical Industry. CMA, Washington,D.C., pp. 82.


Community Emergency Response Exercises Guidebook. CMA, Washington,D.C., pp. 62.

Verband der ChemischenIndustrie (1994)

Leitfaden "Krisenmanagement" für die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit [Guide to crisismanagement for public relations work]. VCI, Frankfurt. Pp. 15. [In German]

Claus et al. (1999) Handlungsempfehlungen zur Information der Öffentlichkeit (nach §11a Störfall-Verordnung). (Recommendations on Informing the Public under the HazardousIncidence Ordinance/ Seveso Directive). Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, 1999, pp.40. [In German]

2.1.3.3 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMERS

See also Case Studies Boeing Commercial Air-plane Group (1992)

Crisis Communications: A Guide for Planning. 1992 Edition. Boeing Com-mercial Airplane Group, Public Relations, Seattle, pp. 96.

2.1.4 SPECIFIC RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: PARTICIPATION AND DIALOGUE

2.1.4.1 PARTICIPATION: GENERAL

Renn, O., Webler, T. andWiedemann, P. (1995)

Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Envi-ronmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

2.1.4.2 PARTICIPATION INVOLVING COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS

BASF Corporation (1989) Community Advisory Panel Handbook. BASF Corporation, Public Affairs, Sep-tember 1989, pp. 48.

Chemical Manufacturer'sAssociation (1994)

Community Advisory Panel Handbook. CMA, Washington, D.C.

EEI Public ParticipationTask Force (1994)

Public Participation Manual (2e.) Edison Electric Institute (EEI).

Office of Intergovernmen-tal and Public Account-ability, US DOE (Undated)

How to Design a Public Accountability Program. Year unknown. EM-22, USDepartment of Energy.

2.1.4.3 PARTICIPATION INVOLVING CONSUMERS Joss, S. and Durant, J.(eds.) (1995)

Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe.Science Museum, London

2.2 RISK COMMUNICATIO MANUALS


2.2.1 GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE 2.2.1.1 GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: ALL USERS

MANUALS ON RISK COMMUNICATION

RC Manual 1: Covello, V.T. and Allen, F.W. (1988). Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. OPA-87-020. April 1988. US Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, D.C. (leaflet)

Summary: A classic of the early advice on risk communication. These rules have been widely reproduced andquoted. They represent a "behavioural code" for public and private sector managers in relation to risk communi-cation, which was clearly lacking at the time of publication. The fact that many of the rules now seem obviousimplies that the situation has moved on over the last decade; most of the ideas covered in these rules are nowwidely accepted as norms. The rules are thus only a very basic starting point for modern risk communication,and must be supplemented by detailed practical advice. Nevertheless, it can be observed that even these rules arestill regularly broken by individual companies or government agencies.

Contents: Seven general rules are presented, covering (i) the communicator's fundamental attitude to communi-cation, for instance "Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner", "Be honest frank and open" and"Speak clearly and with compassion", and (ii) practical advice such as "Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts"and "Meet the needs of the Media". For each rule, brief Guidelines and Points to Consider are provided.

Feature Details

1. Background,Consultants

− Resulted from US EPA's efforts to address risk communication (e.g. about Superfundsites) during mid-late 1980s

2. Intendedreadership

− "These rules apply equally well to the public and private sectors".− Government/ agency officials− Corporate managers, plant managers

3. Type of risk − General (any risk for which human actors or organisations might be held responsible) 4. Type of

situation− Not specified

5. Special focus − General rules for maintaining trust in organisation and avoiding antagonising public ormedia in potentially sensitive risk-related situations.

6. Empiricalfoundation

− RC/ RP literature (see also related manuals by Covello), authors' experience

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance

− Dialogue, participation, conflict resolution B


RC Manual 2: Gray, P.C.R., Stern, R.M. and Biocca, M. (eds.) (1998).Communicating about Risks to Environment and Health in Europe.Published on behalf of the WHO Regional Office for Europe.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 409.

A book of case studies and general advice on risk communication, intended to act as a source of practical infor-mation and with a special focus on European countries. Contains 13 case studies of communication about dif-ferent types of risk source, as well as general overviews of risk communication and risk perception. The hazardscovered range from AIDS to electromagnetic fields and asbestos to nuclear energy. Most of the case studies areoverviews of communication about a given risk in one or more countries; a few concentrate on specific commu-nication efforts. Each case study also contains a brief summary of the scientific risk assessments for the riskinvolved.

The book's introduction places risk communication in the context of risk management. The nature of risk com-munication is described in detail in Chapter 2, which also provides an 'executive summary' of the case studies,conclusions from them for practical communication, and the relevance of each study to specific aspects of com-munication. The case studies themselves take up the bulk of the book. Most of the studies are reviews of commu-nication about the risks from particular sources, e.g. AIDS, waste incineration and radon gas, with more or lessspecific examples. Each case study also contains a brief review of current scientific assessments of the risks in-volved. Following the case studies there is a discussion of the local risk management system, a chapter on risk percep-tion, and a further chapter providing guidelines for risk communication (public information campaigns and par-ticipatory methods). The final chapter describes three 'public debates' held during the book's drafting, in order togather stakeholder (e.g. NGO, government) views for incorporation in the book, as well as some conclusionsfrom them.

Feature Details


− Grew out of initiatives by the WHO and the Society for Risk Analysis (Europe) in early1990s; financially supported by the health service in Emilio Romagna, Italy, and theGerman federal environment ministry.

− Written by team from Canada, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK under theauspices of the WHO's European Centre for Environment and Health, Bilthoven.


− Decision-makers, government/ agency officials− Corporate managers− General non-specialist audience− Affected groups

1. Type of risk − Various health and environmental risks, including production (e.g. energy), distribution(e.g. electricity), product (e.g. tobacco) and disease risks (e.g. AIDS).

1. Type ofsituation

− Main focus is on "normal" communication situations, including conflict situations (e.g.over nuclear power). Some "crises" are also covered (e.g. Salmonella outbreaks, smallhigh-risk areas).

2. Special focus − Advice about RC content and process3. Empirical

foundation− Expert experience, case studies, RC/ RP literature

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. A− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

4. Relevance

− Dialogue, participation, conflict resolution C


RC Manual 3: Lundgren, R.E. (1994). Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio (pp. 175)

This is intended as a practical guide for "front-line" communicators, and is very much a "hands-on" manual. Riskcommunication is treated as a subset of technical communication which consists of three areas: care, consensusand crisis communication (a framework which is unfortunately not further developed). Apart from a brief discus-sion of applicable approaches to communicating risk, the book focuses very much on communication technique,understood relatively narrowly. Its weaknesses include a lack of discussion of the reasons for risk communica-tion problems, and of concrete examples or case studies. Contains some useful material and ideas but is qualita-tively weak.

− Understanding Risk Communication (Approaches, Laws, Ethical issues etc.)− Planning the Risk Communication Effort− Developing Risk Communication Messages− Evaluating Risk Communication Efforts− Resources and Glossary

Feature Details


− Author is technical communications specialist with Battelle Institute.


− Writers, editors and communication specialists− Scientists, engineers and health risk professionals who have to communicate results of

health risk assessments− Representatives of organisations who must present risk management decisions

3. Type of risk

− General health, environmental and safety risks

4. Type ofsituation

− Mainly communication in "normal" situations, although crisis communication is alsomentioned briefly.

5. Special focus − Advice about practical aspects of providing risk information to the public

6. Empirical

foundation− Expert guess/ judgement− Draws on specialist literature including � Covello, Sandman and Slovic (1988)

and � NRC (1989). Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



RC Manual 4: Mulligan, J., McCoy, E., Griffiths, A. (1998). Principles of Communicating Risks. The Macleod Institue for Environmental Analysis, University of Cal-gary, Alberta, pp. 57.

Summary: This manual approaches risk communication in the context of organisational management structuresand procedures. Risk communcation's purpose is to improve (organisational/ societal) performance based on"informed, mutual decisions" about managing risks. Four key factors in risk communication are discussed: multi-ple stakeholders, multiple messages, information content, and the nature of risk. The principles of risk communi-cation – seen here as the interactive exchange of information and opinion, shared decision-making, active part-nerships and an improved atmosphere of trust – should be applied at each stage of risk management decision-making. The report usefully reviews the phases in the evolution of risk communication and illustrates them usingexamples from the Canadian petroleum industry. The third chapter deals with the integration of risk communica-tion into existing management systems, especially environmental management. Problems and barriers to imple-menting risk communication are discussed in the fourth chapter. A useful guide and one of the relatively few pieces of work available in English to approach risk communica-tion from an organisational and management viewpoint.

Contents:− Executive Summary; Table of Contents; Preface by W. Leiss and B. Plesuk; Acknowledgements.− Communicating Risks (pp. 9)− Evolution of Risk Communication (pp. 10)− Integrating Risk Communication (pp. 18)− Implementation Considerations (pp. 3)− Conclusion (pp.1)− References

Feature Details


− Authors are researchers in corporate environmental management


− Corporate managers and plant managers− Government/ agency officials− Communications specialists (public relations managers and staff)

3. Type of risk − Environmental, health and safety risks4. Type of

situation− Normal or crisis situations

5. Special focus − Integration of risk communication into management structures and procedures6. Empirical

foundation− Expert experience− Mini-case studies from Canadian petroleum industry− Literature on RP, RC, RM, issues management, corporate environmental managementRelevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance

− Dialogue, participation, conflict resolution A


RC Manual 5: Wiedemann, P. and Schütz, H. (2000). Developing Dialogue-Based Risk Communication Programmes. Prepared for WHO-Monograph on EMFrisk communication. Studies on Risk Communication 79, Research Centre Jülich, Germany, March 2000, pp. 50.

Summary: Overview of approaches to risk communication, basic problems and issues, and advice on effectiverisk communication. An interesting aspect is the section on evaluating scientific information.

Contents:− Risk Communication: Definitions, Objectives and Tasks− Approaches to Risk Communication− Risk Communication Basics− Weighing the Evidence: A Framework for Evaluating Scientific Knowledge….− Effective Risk Communication− Summary: Essentials to Remember

Feature Details


− Prepared as part of an ongoing WHO project on risk communcation about electromag-netic fields (see chapter on risk communication programmes)


− General risk managers− Decision-makers− Government/ agency officials− Corporate managers general− Laypeople

1. Type of risk − General (chronic) environmental health risks

2. Type ofsituation

− Mainly normal communication situations rather than crises

3. Special focus − General advice on dialogue-oriented risk communication− Evaluating scientific information about health effects− Interaction with journalists


− Expert experience− Specialist literature review

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

5. Relevance



MANUALS ON ISSUES MANAGEMENT

RC Manual 6: Affleck, M.E. (1998). RadarScan Issues Management. Issue Action Publications, 207 Loudon St., SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, pp. 98.

Summary: The basic tenet of this punchy booklet is that companies which fail to respond toearly to issues in the "Change Age" will inevitably respond late – and go out of business. Theauthor offers numerous examples of losers and winners in managing issues. The solutionwhich he puts forward is what he terms "RadarScan" issues management (note that the term"RadarScan" is used metaphorically, referring to scanning for issues, and has nothing to dowith dangers from radar apparatus). This is a six-part process for scanning the business envi-ronment for relevant issues, and identifying responses to them: The RadarScan Issues Management Model:

Soul – What does the organisation stand for? Scan – "What will sink the ship?" Analyse – Where is the issue in its life cycle, analysis of risks, etc. Strategy – Organisational goals, response options, resources Action – including communication programme Review – Evaluation tools, performance of IM programme, etc.

Fundamentally this is simply an introduction to issues management (the variability of terminology in the fieldmay reflect its youth as well as the communicative bent of those involved), but it is an especially readable one.One section that requires a word of caution in relation to risk communication is "The Persuasion Purpose". Inmost cases, risk communication and persuasion should be carefully separated from each other. With this cautionin mind, this booklet can be recommended, especially for the reader in a hurry.

Contents:− Part One: Playing in the Future Now (why it is important to look at issues proactively and how to organise

resources to achieve this):− Part Two: The RadarScan Issues Management Model− Part Three: Begin to Begin… Take Action!− Appendix A: The Issues Management Model (set of diagrams suitable for overhead projection)

Feature Details


− Author is CEO of California Avocado Commission where he has been involved in man-aging various major issues


− Corporate managers, public relations/ communications managers− Also relevant for public sector officials

3. Type of risk Risks to organisational image or business4. Type of

situat.− Development of issues with possibly serious negative consequences for organisation

5. Special focus − Detecting and responding to important developing issues, especially through communi-cation measures


− Author's experience− Numerous "mini-case studies" mentionedRelevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances -

7. Relevance

− Encouraging safe product use etc. -


− Crisis communication about products/ substances A− Dialogue, participation, conflict resolution -


RC Manual 7: Sopow, E. (1994). The Critical Issues Audit. Issue Action Publications, 207 Loudon St., SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, pp. 122.

Summary: A guide to corporate survival in an environment of rapidly changing public values (in north America)written by a former government communications specialist. The six "critical issues" at the book's core are com-pany performance in relation to the environment, safety and security, gender/ equity issues, service quality/ valuefor money, institutional accountability and empowerment (of employees, customers etc.). The book containspractical tools for assessing your organisation's position in each of these areas, for identifying and ranking issues,and for dealing with them in communication terms – including the use of "ESP": keeping messages emotive,simple and personal. The manual's deep sensitivity to potentially dangerous issues is guaranteed to strengthen thereader's "issue awareness". A good practical "toolkit" for those who want to assess and manage the issues facingtheir organisation.

Contents:− The Issues Vulnerability Index− The Issues Value Tree− The Issue Power Test− The Critical Issue Goalpost− The Issue Progression Curve− The Issue Exposure Index− Stakeholder Assessment Sheet− Some Battle Tactics− The Issue Advocacy Matrix− Useful Formats

Feature Details


− Author is issues management consultant and former junior minister for communicationsin Government of British Columbia.


− Communications specialists (public relations managers and staff)− Government/ agency officials− Corporate managers and plant managers

1. Type of risk − Risks to organisation from its performance regarding environment, safety and security,gender/ equity issues, service quality/ value for money, institutional accountability,empowerment (of employees, customers etc.).

1. Type ofsituation

− Typically relates to risks that could produce crisis situations if not successfully managed

2. Special focus − The identification and management of issues with high relevance to an organisation3. Empirical

foundation− Expert experience− Case study− Specialist literatureRelevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

4. Relevance

− Dialogue, participation, conflict resolution -

RC Manual 8: Susskind, L. and Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes. Free Press, New York, pp. 276.


The book describes an approach to public disputes over corporate plans based on negotiation rather than conflict.It discusses why the public reacts "angrily" to certain projects and events, and presents six principles (the "mutualgains approach") for dealing with them – e.g. acknowledge the concerns of the other side, encourage joint factfinding, focus on long-term relationships. The central chapters show how these principles work using cases re-lated to major accidents (e.g. Three Mile Island reactor), products (e.g. Alar, breast implants), value conflicts,and dealing with the media. The book is an invaluable approach to solving conflicts from outside the narrow fieldof risk communication, which both confirms and greatly extends the approaches advocated within the field.

Contents− Why is the Public Angry; The Mutual Gains Approach.− Accidents will Happen; Risky Business; When Values Collide; The Media.− Principled Leadership.

Feature Details


− The authors are respectively Professor and Senior Researcher in MIT-Harvard's PublicDisputes Program; Susskind is a leading academic in the field of conflict resolution, anda well-known mediator.


− Government/ agency officials− Executives and managers− Public relations professionals− Legal professionals

1. Type of risk − Any "public" risks, e.g. major accidents (e.g. Three Mile Island reactor), products (e.g.Alar, breast implants), environmental conflicts.

1. Type ofsituation

− Any communication situation (normal or emergency) where members of the public areangry with those held responsible for a risk (or other condition).

2. Special focus − Dealing with conflicts with the public, including conflicts over products or production.Also covers interaction with journalists, participation and mediation.


− Expert experience and research− Case studiesRelevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

4. Relevance



KEY REPORTS ON RISK COMMUNICATION

RC Manual 9: Bennett, P. and Calman, K. (1999). Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 272. Summary:

Contents: Papers divided into four Parts:− Research perspectives (5 chapters introducing risk communication research, by various UK researchers)− Lessons from prominent cases (4 chapters covering E. Coli, BSE and environmental health issues in Wales,

mainly written by public health scientists)− Institutional issues: some perspectives (6 chapters wrestling with institutional reasons for risk communication

failures in UK, including views of Greenpeace and Consumers' Association - see McKechnie and Davies).− Pulling the threads together (5 chapters on "key themes" including risk communication as a decision process,

influence of the media, and evaluation).

Feature Details


− Most papers were presented at 1997 Department of Health conference.


− Primarily aimed at government officials and decision-makers− Also of interest to private sector (especially food or health-related industries)

3. Type of risk − Public health risks, especially associated with foodstuffs

4. Type ofsituation

− Especially crisis situations

5. Special focus − The book focuses on risk communication problems between government and consumersin relation to foodstuffs in the "post-BSE" era.


− Authors' research (in case of social scientists) or direct experience (in case of governmentofficials and scientists)

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



RC Manual 10: Gutteling, J.M. and Wiegman, O. (1996).

Exploring Risk Communication. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 221.

Summary: This book is "an attempt to present the state of the art in risk communication research", and is less of amanual than an academic review. It forms a useful contrast to the bulk of the risk communication manuals, whichtend to present risk communication as "discipline" with a good empirical basis. This book shows that things arenot really so simple nor so well-founded. Among other things, the book draws upon the authors' own empiricalstudies in the Netherlands on public risk perception, the effects of media reports, and the effects of different sortsof risk message (the latter in connection with a fictional new chemical plant). A systematic planning model forrisk communication is also presented.

Contents:− Hazards and risks− Risk communication model; a systematic planning approach− The context of risk communication: The mass media− The risk communication audience (1)

− Influences of risk messages (1)

− Sources of risk messages (1)

− Risk communication media− Risk communication revisited and future developments

(1) These chapters draw upon a field experiment in the Netherlands about the effects on risk perception of different messages concerning afictitious chemical plant.

Feature Details


− The authors are psychologists at the University of Twente, Netherlands− The book draws upon the authors' research since the early 1980s for various Dutch gov-

ernment Ministries and institutes 2. Intended

readership− Risk scholars and students− Risk communication practitioners

3. Type of risk − Natural and man-made risks 4. Type of

situation− In principle any kind of risk situation; however many of the examples concern production

processes and crisis situations, e.g. related to hazardous industrial facilities 5. Special focus − The book particularly focuses on the empirical evaluation of the content, source, and

effects of messages about various kinds of risk. 6. Empirical

foundation− The authors' own empirical studies on public risk perception, the effects of media reports,

effects of different sorts of risk message (the latter in connection with a fictional newchemical plant), and so on, for various Ministries and institutes in Netherlands since theearly 1980s.

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



RC Manual 11: National Research Council (1989). Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 332.

Summary: An important landmark within the early risk communication literature, this report tries to approach riskcommunication as a form of dialogue ("an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion …"). Itrepresents a slightly uneasy synthesis of natural science approaches with psychological findings. Although not amanual as such, it contains many useful and serious reflections on the nature of risk communication – pointingout, for instance, that good risk communication will not always reduce conflict, but may even increase it. On thenegative side, the book is not particularly clearly structured, and it does not discuss social aspects of (nor socio-logical approaches to) risk issues. For most readers today, it will suffice to read the Summary and Introduction,which cover virtually all the main conclusions.

Contents: Summary; Introduction; Understanding Hazards and Risks; Conflicts about Hazards and Risks; Pur-poses of Risk Communication and Risk Messages; Common Misconceptions about Risk Communication; Prob-lems of Risk Communication; Recommendations for Improving Risk Communication.

Feature Details


– Drawn up by NRC Committee on Risk Perception and Communication from mid-1997 tomid-1998.


– Scientists who have to communicate about risk– Government/ agency officials– Corporate managers– Interested laypeople

3. Type of risk – Environmental and health risks in general

4. Type ofsituation

– Normal or crisis situations

5. Special focus – The book focuses on risk communication as an interactive process, on common miscon-ceptions about the subject, and problems of risk communication


– Expert experience Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



RC Manual 12: National Research Council Committee on Risk Characterization (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. P.C. Stern and H.V. Fineberg, eds. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. pp. 249.

Summary: This report may seem an ”outsider” in the current context, since it contains only the briefest of explicitreferences to ”risk communication”. However implicitly, much of the book is about communication betweendifferent stakeholders, and the participation of affected groups in the ”characterization” of risk. In fact it repre-sents an attempt to establish a new paradigm for risk assessment/ management, in which experts, officials and”interested and affected parties” are all involved in each stage of risk assessment/ management. On this under-standing, both ”analysis” and ”deliberation” play essential roles in risk characterisation.

Contents:− The Idea of Risk Characterization; Judgment in the Risk Decision Process; Deliberation; Analysis; Integrating

Analysis and Deliberation; Implementing the New Approach; Principles for Risk Characterization.− Appendices: Six Cases in Risk Analysis and Characterization; Common Approaches to Deliberation and

Public Participation; Biographical Sketches.− Glossary

Feature Details


− NRC’s Committee on Risk Characterization (including many major names in researchon risk perception, communication and management).


− Government policymakers, officials− Scientists, risk researchers− Other stakeholders

3. Type of risk

− General (especially environment and health-related)

4. Type ofsituation

− Mainly ”normal” situations

5. Special focus − Communication within process of risk characterization/ assessment


− Authors’ experience and research in risk perception, communication, management− Case studies (Appendix 1) Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



2.2.1.2 GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT AGENCY USERS

RC Manual 13: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1997). A Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practices. The ATSDR Website:http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/primer.html#FACTORS

Summary: This document basically recapitulates some of the early recommendations on risk communicationfrom Chess, Hance and Sandman, 1988, Covello and Allen 1988 etc. It concentrates on a relatively narrow viewof risk communication as "presenting information to the public". As such it is not up to date and does not reflectthe full range of risk communication tasks; in addition, the individual sections are very brief. This should there-fore not be relied upon as the sole guide to risk communication, but it can serve as a brief introduction to certainaspects. The document's most useful aspect is its presentation in online (html) format (see also UK Department ofHealth's online advice).

Contents:− The ATSDR Mission: Role and Importance of Community Involvement in ATSDR Health Risk Communica-

tion− Overview of Issues and Guiding Principles for Health Risk Communication (including RC myths and actions,

Seven Cardinal Rules of RC, Factors influencing risk perception, etc.)− Presenting Information at Public Meetings− Working with the Media− References

Feature Details


– Author not stated.– ATSDR's mission is to protect against adverse health effects arising from exposure to

environmental pollutants 2. Intended

readership– Agency officials (ATSDR and other) "who must respond to public concerns about expo-

sure to hazardous substances in the environment". 3. Type of risk – Environmental health risks arising from pollutant exposure

4. Type ofsituation

– Normal or crisis situations

5. Special focus – Informing concerned public about health risks from pollutant exposure


– Specialist literature

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



RC Manual 14: Chess, C. (1988). Encouraging Effective Risk Communication: Suggestions for Agency Management. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research,Trenton, New Jersey. Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp.9. Also printed as Appendix to � Covello, McCallum and Pavlova, 1989a.

Companion to � Hance, B.J., Chess, C. and Sandman, P.M. (1988). This paper addresses a problem discoveredduring the research for its companion: lack of support/ understanding from senior officials (managers) for the riskcommunication problems of front-line staff.

Contents: Organizational Climate, Decisionmaking, Organizational Structure, Staff Support, Planning andEvaluation, Resource Allocation, Interagency Cooperation.

Feature Details


– See HCS 1988


– Middle/ senior managers in government agencies

3. Type of risk

– General environmental etc.

4. Type ofsituation

– Not specific

5. Special focus – Focus is on creating organisational (background) conditions for good front-line riskcommunication


– Survey data

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. B− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



RC Manual 15: Chess, C. (1992). How to plan for Communication with the Public: Development of a Seminar for Environmental Managers.Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 45. CHE 1992

Summary: Description and evaluation of a seminar on RC for EPA officials.

Contents: Three case studies/ exercises: decommissioning a nuclear power plant; urban air pollution control;and communication management/ planning.

Features

All basically similar to features of the related manuals. However greater emphasis on plan-ning risk communication and on dialogue with communities. Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance


RC Manual 16: Chess, C., Hance, B.J. and Sandman, P.M. (1988). Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide for Government Risk Communication. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research,Trenton, New Jersey. Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 30.

Summary: This is a short, distilled version of �Hance, Chess and Sandman (1988). Omitted here are (a) fullexplanation of rationale for suggestions; (b) quotations from interviewees; (c) illustrative anecdotes and exam-ples. Included are most of guidelines and "Yes, But..." (answers to common objections to carrying out RC etc.)sections.

Features See Hance, Chess and Sandman (1988) for features not listed below.


− Front-line communicators with urgent communication problem and little time to prepare.

4. Type ofsituation

− Especially crisis situations.


RC Manual 17: Chess, C., Hance, B.J. and Sandman, P.M. (1989). Planning Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Workbook. Environmental CommunicationResearch Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 40.

Summary: Workbook to accompany � Hance, B.J., Chess, C., and Sandman, P.M. (1988) and � Chess, C.,Hance, B.J. and Sandman, P.M. (1988), to help agency staff to learn how to apply the guidelines. In contrast tothe related manuals, focus is on "how" rather than "why".

Features

All basically similar to features of the related manuals. However greater emphasis on plan-ning risk communication and on dialogue with communities.

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



RC Manual 18: Covello, V.T., McCallum, D.B., Pavlova, M. (eds) (1989a).

Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Non-Government Organiza-tions. Plenum Press, New York, 1989. (pp. 370).

A valuable collection of papers, case studies and manuals on risk communication, focussing mainly on the gov-ernment-public interface. Incorporates as appendices several manuals discussed elsewhere in this bibliography.

Six sections:– Overview: Principles and Guidelines for Improving Risk Communication, by the editors (14pp) – see a con-

cise practical overview of the state of the art at the time– Perspectives on Government Risk Communication– Government Risk Communication Programs– Case Studies of Government Risk Communication– The Risk Communication Process– Appendixes: Inventory of Government Risk Communication Programs (� Covello, McCallum and Pavlova,

1989b); � Hance, Chess and Sandman, 1988; � Covello, Sandman and Slovic, 1988; � Chess, 1988.

Feature Details


− "…rising public concerns about health and environmental risks" (p.3).− Workshop on "The Role of Government in Health Risk Communication and Public

Education".− Sponsor: Task Force on Environmental Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease.


− Decision-makers− Government/ agency officials− Plant managers− Affected groups

3. Type of risk

− General− Case studies on communication about food risk, dioxins, hazardous waste landfills,

accidental release of chemicals, exposure of workers. 4. Type of

situation− Covers mainly production and waste-related risks, but some product risks (chemicals in

food). Both "normal" and crisis communication are discussed. 5. Special focus − Communication by government agencies

− Case studies on communication of chemical plant / substance risks 6. Empirical

foundation− Varies depending on contribution; includes case studies

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



RC Manual 19: Covello, V.T., McCallum, D.B., Pavlova, M. (1989b).

Principles and Guidelines for Effective Risk Communication. Chapter 2 in: V.T. Covello, D.B. McCallum,M. Pavlova (eds) (1989a). Effective Risk Communication: the role and responsibility of Government andNon-Government Organizations. Plenum Press, New York, 1989. (pp. 14)

Summary: A concise practical overview of the state of the art of risk communication at the time.

Contents: The paper provides concise "bullet point" guidelines on:− Guiding Risk Communication Philosophy and Orientation− Planning and Evaluation− The Risk Communication Process (Message Sources, Message Design, Delivery Channels, Target Audi-

ences)

Feature Details


− See Covello, McCallum and Pavlova (eds), 1989a


− Decision-makers and government/ agency officials− Plant managers− Affected groups

3. Type of risk − General

4. Type ofsituation

− Not specific

5. Special focus − Content of risk communications

7. Risk Commu-nication Func-tion

− Informing and explaining− Encouraging proper use− Enhancing trust and credibility


− Draws on authors' experience as well as the texts in the rest of the volume Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. B− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



RC Manual 20: Hance, B.J., Chess, C. and Sandman, P.M. (1988). Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Risk Communication Manual for Government. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research,Trenton, New Jersey. Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. c. 91. Also printed as Appendix to � Covello, McCallum and Pavlova, 1989a.

Summary: A classic of risk communication literature, this practical guide was intended to help agency officialscope with the increasing difficulties in communication with the public (communities) experienced during themid-1980s in the USA. It adopts a quick-to-read, user-friendly style based on (a) sets of guidelines (behaviouralmaxims or "golden rules") and (b) replies to common objections to recommendations ("Yes, But..." sections).The Manual, which was developed on the basis of extensive interviews with officials, also contains illustrativeexamples and anecdotes, and explanations of the reasons for the guidelines.

Contents:− How Communities see Risk− Earning Trust and Credibility− Deciding When to Release Information− Interacting with the Community− Explaining Risk

Feature Details


− Controversies over various environmental issues, notably Superfund hazardous wasteremediation sites, for which government agencies (held) responsible, and resultantcommunication challenges for officials.


− Government agency officials, especially those in "front line" i.e. with frequent directpublic contact.

3. Type of risk

− General environmental and public health risks (e.g. "Superfund" hazardous waste sites)

4. Type ofsituation

− Especially long-term crisis situations in local areas

5. Special focus − Interaction with affected people in sensitive risk-related situations by representatives ofregulatory authorities. Particular focuses include the need for early information release,and minimising "outrage" effects.


− Main source was a survey consisting of interviews about risk communication successesand failures with 50+ academic experts, industry reps., citizen leaders, agency staff inUSA (names listed). Interviews were analysed qualitatively (authors attempted to distilexperience, judgements etc. of interviewees in ways helpful for audience)

− Authors' experience of media research (Sandman). Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



RC Manual 21: Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA) (1998). Risk Communication. A Guide to Regulatory Practice. Health and Safety Executive, London, pp. 22.

This brochure is intended to provide guidance on risk communication to UK government officials and depart-ments. Although the immediate background was one of spectacular public health scares in the UK - which mightbe considered as failures of risk communication - such as the BSE crisis, the brochure points out that Govern-ment also often communicates well about risk, and it seeks to draw upon 'good practice' in various departments (itreflects the conclusions of a specially commissioned study, "Risk Communication Benchmarking in Govern-ment"). The brochure sets out a useful framework for risk communication from the government viewpoint, andprovides only very basic advice on risk communication as such. The main messages concern the need to integraterisk communication into decision-making processes.

Contents:− Chapters cover risk communication in the regulatory context, integrating risk communication and regulation

(principle 1), developing good practice (principles 2-4), responding to events, and a "Five-Minute Guide" forthose who have to speak to the public or press on a risk issue.

− The brochure's central principle is that risk communication must be integrated with risk regulation, i.e. mak-ing and implementing decisions about risk management. The approach to communication differs between"individual choice" risks and "government-regulated" risks.

− The supporting principles of listening to stakeholders, tailoring messages, and managing the process are alsorelated in the brochure to the various stages of risk management decision-making. The "ECCB" formula("Empathy Concern, Commitment and Benefit") is also mentioned.

− A further section deals with responding to events e.g. new information on risks, or crises.− The Five-Minute Guide gives hints to those who have to speak about risks.

Feature Details


− Various public health scares in UK in mid-late 1990s; long-standing concern with de-velopment of risk management on part of HSE.


− Government/ agency officials - especially policy/ management levels, not primarilyintended for staff "in the field"

3. Type of risk − All government-regulated risks (occupational health and safety, public health risks,plant-related risks, food safety, medical risks etc.)

4. Type ofsixtuation

− The discussion covers both general and crisis communication. It differentiates sharplybetween "individual choice" and "government-regulated" risks (see below).

5. Special focus − Advice about RC process, especially its planning and organisation.− Listening to public concerns.− "Five-Minute Guide" for speaking to public at short notice on risk issue.


− Commissioned study of good practice in government departments: "Risk Communica-tion Benchmarking in Government", HSE, London, 1997.

− Some standard (USA) risk perception/ communication references Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances

7. Relevance

− Dialogue, participation, conflict resolution

RC Manual 22: UK Department of Health (1998). Communicating About Risks to Health: Pointers to Good Practice. UK Department of Health, London, pp. 30 (ISBN 0113222572) Available in Internet (pdf and html format) at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/pointers.htm


This is a brief guide to the area of risk perception and risk communication, written by an official in the UK'sDepartment of Health against the background of several huge and costly risk-related controversies in the UK inrecent years (e.g. BSE). These cases revealed serious inadequacies in the UK Government's traditional approachto risk communication, in the face of novel, highly uncertain risks. This has led to considerable interest in betterrisk communication in Britain, especially in the area of food risk (see also ILGRA, 1998). This paper conciselydraws together existing findings (including recent ones) from several areas, and provides some basic aids forthose who have to familiarise themselves quickly with this area.

Contents− Need to understand communication difficulties; communication as a two-way process− Implications of research findings on risk perception, risk comparisons, media etc.− Risk communication as a decision process: scanning, setting objectives, planning, monitoring and review.− Embedding Better Practice− Checklist of Key Points− Bibliography (in sub-sections corresponding to first three sections of paper)

Feature Details

1. Background − Health scares in UK, 1980s-1990s


− Decision-makers− Government/ agency officials− General professional audience

3. Type of risk

− Public health risks, including clinical risks; mainly concerned with the effects of prod-ucts, diseases etc., not production processes.

4. Type ofsituation

− Implicitly covers both normal and crisis situations.

5. Special focus − Public perceptions of (NB health) risks; explaining risks; risk communication as a deci-sion process (cf. issue management)


− Cites many of the central papers on risk perception, cultural theory, risk comparisons,media triggers etc.

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevxance



2.2.1.3 GENERAL RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: INDUSTRY USERS

RC Manual 23: Covello, V.T., Sandman, P.M. and Slovic, P. (1988). Risk Communication, Risk Statistics and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers. Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 75. Also printed as Appendix to � Covello, McCallum and Pavlova, 1989a.

Summary: This manual was intended to help plant managers deal with the expected demands for information onemissions and risks arising from the SARA Title III (Right-to-Know) legislation and similar local/ state laws. Itfocuses mainly on the content rather the process of communication. This is one of a series of manuals, reviews and papers produced by these authors and their co-workers invarious constellations in the late 1980s (see below). At this time in the USA both government health and envi-ronment officials in various administrations, and chemical industry managers were experiencing increasing diffi-culties in communication with the public regarding risk-related problems - in particular the risks highlighted bythe "Superfund" contaminated land remediation program, risks linked to specific consumer products (e.g. applesaffected by pesticide), and the risks associated with chemical and petrochemical production sites. Although fur-ther sources of activity in risk communication included the electricity (electric power) industry, the needs ofgovernment officials and the chemical industry and their problems dominate the early risk communication manu-als. Covello, Sandman and Slovic's (1988) advice in relation to risk comparisons has "classic" status, but shouldbe applied with caution and common sense. The manual's most famous contribution was to rank different types ofcomparison in terms of acceptability. This is a pragmatic approach, but the authors probably underestimated theimportance of context in selecting risk comparisons (see No. 6 below). In a broader sense, there is a certain con-tradiction between the stress laid on the topic of risk comparisons, and the warnings given about using them (seeContents).

Contents: The content of risk communication messages forms the main focus of the manual. The first chaptercovers general aspects of risk communication and perception including Covello and Allen's "Seven Cardinal Rules". Chapter 2 deals with different ways to present numerical data tolaypeople. The next two chapters as well as the Appendices focus on risk comparisons, including a ranking ofcomparison types from "most" to "rarely" acceptable. Each table in the Appendices carries a "warning" that useof the data presented for risk comparison purposes "can severely damage your credibility". Chapters:− Effectively Communicating Risk Information− Guidelines for Providing and Explaining Risk-Related Numbers and Statistics− Guidelines for Providing and Explaining Risk Comparisons− Concrete Examples of Risk Comparisons− Anticipating Objections to Explanations of Chemical Risks Appendix A: Concentration and Quantity Comparisons Appendix B: Risk Comparison Tables and Figures

Feature Details


– Public concern and protest over hazardous waste sites, incinerators etc.; increasing oppo-sition to certain chemical industry products and activities; resultant communication chal-lenges for corporate managers


– Plant managers (also relevant to most other risk communicators).

3. Type of risk – Long-term health risks; general risks; chemical risks. 4. Type of

situation– Normal plant operation.

5. Special focus – Advice for plant managers about communicating with plant neighbours, but much of theadvice potentially relevant to the presentation of risk information in general.


– The manual builds on the authors' considerable experience in research on risk perception(Slovic), mass media (Sandman) and risk management/ risk comparisons (Covello). It


draws on other papers by the authors including � Covello and Allen’s "Seven CardinalRules" of RC (1988) and � Hance, Chess and Sandman (1988).

– It is not narrowly based on research findings and much of it has a qualitative, hands-onbasis, drawing heavily on common sense. Most specific advice on the presentation of in-formation is not clearly backed up by research. The ranking of risk comparisons – a use-ful starting point for the defined target audience – appears too simple in the light of laterfindings (e.g. that responses to risk comparisons vary according to communication con-text and level of controversy).

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. B− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance


RC Manual 24: Wiedemann, P.M., Carius, R., Henschel, C., Kastenholz, H., Nothdurft,W., Ruff, F. and Uth, H.-J. et al. (in press, 2000). Risikommunikation für Unternehmen: Ein Leitfaden (A Guide to Risk Communication for Companies). Ver-ein Deutscher Ingenieure. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, pp. 101. [In German]


Summary: This guide seeks to provide information about the meaning and goals of risk com-munication, and how to implement it organisationally in the corporation. It begins from thebasic insight of risk perception research, that risk is perceived differently by lay people andexperts. While experts see risks mainly in terms of cause, effect and uncertainty, lay peopletend to see risks in a social context, concentrating on victims and perpetrators. This differencecreates the need for risk communication. In order to bridge this gap, qualitative risk communi-cation is required which takes account of possible deficits in trust and tries to develop a suit-able form of two-way communication. The three basic elements in this risk communication arequality of relationship, design of information and the organisation of dialogue. Practical stepsin a risk communication programme are explained, including analysing the risk issue, per-forming a trust audit and determining key messages, as well as the related area of crisis man-agement and communication. A further chapter concentrates on the organisation of risk com-munication in the corporation. The book rounds off with a consideration of how risk commu-nication may develop in the future. This is an attractively produced, user-friendly brochure which integrates both classical and recent findings ofrisk perception and risk communication research with practical approaches and concepts from other fields. Contents4:− What is risk communication and what should it do?− Basic elements of risk communication− Steps in risk communication− Crisis management and crisis communication− The organisation of risk communication in companies− The future of risk communication− References, glossary, contacts, authors' details Feature Details 1. Background,

Consultants− Sponsored by VDI, the main professional association for engineers in Germany− Authors include communication researchers, officials and company representative


− Corporate managers− Public relations managers and staff− Government and agency officials

3. Type of risk

− Any environmental or health risk associated with company activity, products− Risks to the organisation from the above, or from outside influences

4. Type of situat. − Normal and crisis situations 5. Special focus − Improving the company's capacity for risk communication with lay people and other

stakeholders 6. Empirical

foundation− Authors' experience in research, government and business− Literature on risk perception, risk communication, risk management, crisis management Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance


4 Translated from German by Resource Book authors


2.2.2 SPECIFIC RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: PROVISION OF INFORMATION

2.2.2.1 PROVISION OF INFORMATION: GENERAL

See Section 1. 2.2.2.2 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS

RC Manual 25: American Chemical Society (ACS) (1988). Chemical Risk Communication: Preparing for Community Interest in Chemical Release Data. AmericanChemical Society, Washington, D.C., October 1988, pp. 28.

This brochure has the same basic motivation as the CMA's (1988) Workbook, namely ensuring an effective re-sponse by the chemical industry to the EPCRA regulations. The ACS brochure, however, is briefer and some-what less practically focused. It is also aimed at a different target audience (in this case, public health officials),and, unlike the CMA Workbook, includes a section on the assessment of chemical risks. This is a concise andsensible summary of risk communication advice applied to chemical plant emissions.

Contents:− Background: SARA Title III− Framework for Making Data Relevant: chemical risk assessment, risk perception− Guidelines for Communicating about risks (based on � Covello & Allen's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk

Communication)− Preparing for Community Interest (identifying chemicals held, obtaining technical data, identifying concerns,

perceptions and potential questions)− Resources

Feature Details


EPCRA (SARA Title III), 1986.


− Government/ agency officials

3. Type of risk − Chemical substances

4. Type ofsituation

− Risks of chemical substances released to environment from production plants (in normalproduction and potential accidents).

5. Spxecial fo-cus

− Communication with the communities living near chemical plants about the risks ofplant emissions


− Expert judgement/ knowledge− Specialist literature Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



RC Manual 26: Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA) (1988). Title III Community Awareness Workbook. Chemical Manufacturers' Association, Washington, D.C. pp 74.

This guide is intended to help chemical plant personnel respond to the requirements of the Emergency Planningand Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA 1986 or "SARA Title III"5), for communication of emissions in-formation to the community near their chemical plant. It attempts to prepare staff for practical communication,rather than spell out the letter of the law (which is done in separate publications for managers). The communica-tion activities have two goals: improving local emergency planning, and informing the public about chemicalplant operations. The guide identifies the risk communication issues involved and suggests approaches for ad-dressing them. It stresses the need for proactive, open communication and "bridge-building" with local residentsand officials in advance of the formal deadline in mid-1988, when full emissions information was to be publishedby EPA. It is worth noting that the CMA's voluntary "Responsible Care" programme, which addresses many ofthe same issues, had already began in 1985.

Contents:− SARA (EPCRA) communication requirements− Factors affecting chemical industry's ability to communicate− Community relations as bedrock of successful implementation− Media relations− Timetable for implementation

Feature Details


− Legal requirements for plants (or by default the EPA) to inform local communities aboutplant emissions and emergency planning (EPCRA 1986).


− Plant managers

3. Type of risk − Chemical plants and production processes, emissions, bulk chemicals, emergencies 4. Type of

situation− Normal and crisis situations

5. Special focus − Communication with the communities living near chemical plants about the risks ofplant emissions


− SARA requirements− Report on risk comparisons (see Covello et al.)− Data on plant-community relations from Center for Communication Dynamics, Wash-

ington D.C.− Experience of specific plants/ programmes in USA Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance


RC Manual 27: Wiedemann, P., Schütz, H. and Brüggemann, A. (1999). Leitfaden zum Umgang mit Problemen elektromagnetischer Felder in den Kommunen (A Guide to dealing with EMF problems in municipalities). BMU, Berlin/ Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, pp. 92. [In German]

5 Title III of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorisation Act (SARA), 1986.


Summary: This is a guide to understanding and communicating about the issue of potential risks from electro-magnetic fields (EMF), intended primarily for office-bearers in small local authorities, but also of interest to thelay reader. It has three aims: to give practical guidance to avoiding conflicts over EMF on the municipal levelthrough information and dialogue; to motivate the municipalities to analyse their role in conflicts and their ownscope for action; and to enable an understanding of the scientific and legal issues involved. The main part of theguide deals with practical methods for carrying out a dialogue with citizens.

Contents: The main part of the guide provides an insight into the sources of conflicts over EMF and how to prevent orreduce them, including especially advice on how to carry out communication (dialogue) with citizens. Threesupplementary chapters for the (more) interested reader cover respectively the evaluation of EMF's effects onhealth, Frequently Asked Questions about EMF and health, and legal aspects. The final chapter contains re-sources for obtaining further information.

Feature Details


− This guide was funded within the German Federal Ministry of the Environment's pro-gramme on EMF.


− Local office-bearers or officials (e.g. local mayors)− Interested lay people

3. Type of risk

− Risks from stationary sources of EMF, particularly mobile phone transmission masts

4. Type ofsituation

− Normal situations, often connected with applications to build mobile phone masts

5. Special focus − Methods for conducting dialogue about risks with citizens in smaller communities; sci-entific knowledge about EMF and health.


− Expert experience− Specialist literature Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



2.2.2.2 PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS

RC Manual 28: Soby, B.A., Simpson, A.C.D., Ives, D. and Hedegård, J.B.O. (1992). Consumer Attitudes to Risk and the Effectiveness of Home and Leisure Safety Campaigns in the EuropeanCommunity. Research report No. 15. Centre for Environmental Risk, School of Environmental Sciences,University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. pp. 201.

This report deals with the broader context of communication with consumers regarding home and leisure acci-dents, and not specifically with consumer products. However the practical contexts overlap to some extent. Thereport provides a valuable review of knowledge on risk perception and communication, and shows how thesecan be applied to consumer safety issues. It introduces a view of risk management as a cyclic process in whichrisk communication plays a central role. It also provides brief summaries of campaigns in various countries, andthe addresses of the relevant government agencies in EU member states.

Contents:− Chapters: Project description; Theoretical background; Managing Home and leusre risks; Home and Leisure

Safety Strategies; Evidence from a European Community Review; Conclusions and Recommendations.− Appendix: 1-page summaries of c. 45 safety campaigns on various issues including child safety, sports and

leisure, fires/ burns, seat belt use/ car safety, etc.

Feature Details


− Commissioned report for European Commission's Consumer Policy Service and Statisti-cal Office. as part of its programme to promote consumer safety and improve utilisationof related statistical data.

− Consultants: researchers with background in environmental risk management/ commu-nication.


− EU and government officials, particularly in departments responsible for consumersafety campaigns

3. Type of risk − Home and leisure accident (i.e. semi-acute, individual) risks 4. Type of

situation− Accident situations.

5. Special focus − Advice about RC content and process: information provision− Advice on safety campaigns


− Specialist literature review− Interviews with safety authorities / organisations in 7 EU member states− Reviews of individual safety campaigns Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations -− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. B− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



RC Manual 29: Soby, B.A., Simpson, A.C.D. and Ives, D. (1993). Integrating public and scientific judgements into a tool kit for managing food-related risks, Stage 1: Litera-ture review and feasibility study. Research Report No. 16, Centre for Environmental and Risk Manage-ment (CERM), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK. pp. 125.

Summary: This report is included here, despite its apparently obscure title and the fact that it only deals verybriefly with risk communication in an explicit way, for three reasons. First, it contains an excellent discussion ofrisk perception. Secondly, it applies this information to specific cases of food risk management/ communication.Thirdly, it presents a model for integrating risk communication and risk management which in retrospect washighly innovative and is still a useful framework. Overall this forms an excellent sourcebook for considering riskissues. The cases discussed are all related to food contamination in the late 1980s-early 1990s in the UK: Salmo-nella in eggs, Listeria, BSE and food irradiation. Although the BSE case is only covered up to 1992, this casestudy is still valuable and even appears somewhat prophetic in the light of later events.

Contents: Introduction; Perception of Risk; Case Studies of Public Reactions to Food-Related Risks; Risk Man-agement; Review of Decision-Making Models; Conclusions and Recommendations.

Feature Details


− Consultants: researchers in environmental risk management/ communication.


− Government officials− Researchers

3. Type of risk − Food-related risks (contamination, disease)

4. Type ofsituation

− Focus on food ”scares”, i.e. crises.

5. Special focus − Communication with public in general and during crises, in relation to food risks


− Literature review of risk perception, risk communication, risk management and decision-making

− Case study material Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



RC Manual 30: Wogalter, M.S., DeJoy, D.M. and Laughery, K.R. (eds.) (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. Taylor and Francis, London/ Philadelphia, pp. 365.

A comprehensive academic treatment of the topic of risk communication using hazard warnings (i.e.signs and symbols, with or without wording). The book contains 15 chapters by various authors. It sets

out a psychological model of how warnings function, and presents research on each of the model'sstages. The most important chapters in the current context discuss, respectively, standards and regu-

lations for warnings in the USA, and practical considerations in designing and evaluating productwarnings.

Contents:− Overview and organising framework (two chapters)− Methodological issues (two chapters)− Research on Warnings: Stages of the Model (seven chapters).

− NB Chapter on Comprehension and Memory (Leonard, S.D. et al., 149-187) includes illustrations andcolour plates of "good and bad" warning signs .

− Practical Issues of Warning Design (two chapters):− Standards and Government Regulations in the USA. Collins, B.L., 265-290.

Discusses the US regulations on warnings for hazardous goods transport, drugs, food, controlled sub-stances, tobacco and alcoholic products, and various sorts of safety sign. Detailed but clear introduction,including problems, current issues and informative examples.

− Practical Considerations Regarding the Design and Evaluation of Product Warnings.Frantz, J.P., Rhoades, T.P. annd Lehto, M.R., 291-311. Concise introduction which places warnings inplanning/ hazard analysis (risk management) framework. Useful information on developing messages,selecting channels etc., and on evaluating warnings. References are given to further guidelines on devel-oping messages.

− Legal aspects (two chapters).

Feature Details


− Psychologically oriented research into warnings


− Government/ agency officials (concerned with regulation of hazardous goods, occupa-tional and public safety, medicines etc.)

− Safety managers, product managers− Warnings designers− Corporate legal advisers− Warnings researchers

3. Type of risk − Various semi-acute hazards, ranging from road signs to radiation hazards− Relates both to production (e.g. occupational safety) and to products (e.g. warnings to

consumers or users, e.g. on roads). 4. Type of

situation− Warnings play a role both in normal communication and in the event of an emergency

(e.g. emergency exit signs). 5. Special focus − Communication with consumers using warning signs and logos 6. Empirical

foundation− Experimental research− Specialist literature− Expert knowledge of legal aspects/ standards Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations -− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. A− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



2.2.3 SPECIFIC RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION

2.2.3.1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION: GENERAL

CRISIS MANAGEMENT

RC Manual 31: Fearn-Banks, K. (1996a). Crisis Communications: A Case book Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 330.

Summary: A solid introduction to crisis communication, with a plethora of cases under various headings rangingfrom product tampering to natural disasters. Conclusions are drawn from groups of related cases.

Contents: In four general chapters the book discusses the nature of crises, crisis communication planning, thesources of crises, and crisis management. The remaining two-thirds of the book present sets of cases under theheadings product tampering, environmental crises, natural disasters, crises of violence, and celebrities. Most ofthe cases stem from the USA.

Feature Details


− Author is on the staff of the School of Communications, University of Washington.



3. Type of risk

− Risks to organisational image, or to people/ things for which the organisation is responsi-ble. These may arise from organisation’s activities, its products, or outside influencesdepending on the nature of the organisation (e.g. government or commercial).

4. Type ofsituation

− Crisis situations

5. Communi-cation focus

− How to communicate in a crisis affecting an organisation


− Expert experience− Case study− Specialist literature Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



RC Manual 32: Mitroff, I. and Pearson, C. (1993). Crisis Management: A Diagnostic Guide for Improving Your Organization's Crisis-Preparedness. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 139.

Summary: This book presents the general concepts underlying crisis management (Part One) and, in Part Two, aset of practical exercises (tools) for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of organisations in relation to poten-tial crises. The third Part describes how to prepare for a crisis, how to act during a crisis, and the elements of anideal crisis management plan. The book combines elements of an academic textbook and a practical manual. Itincludes interesting findings by the Center for Crisis Management; for instance, that there is a mismatch betweenmost large companies' own assessments of the greatest threats they face, and the threats for which they have acrisis management plan in place.

Contents:− Part One: The Basics of Crisis Management (2 chapters)− Part Two: Tools for Diagnosing your Crisis-Preparedness (5 chapters covering crisis types, phases, systems,

stakeholders, and how to chart your organisation's crisis profile)− Part Three: Shaping Your Crisis Management Program (3 chapters).− Appendix: Current Crisis Management Practices Among the Fortune 1000 Companies.

Feature Details


− Authors are researchers at the Center for Crisis Management, University of SouthernCalifornia.


− Senior executives and managers− MBA students

3. Type of risk

− Risks to organisation arising from a "simultaneous breakdown in interactions amongtechnology, people and organisations"

4. Type ofsituation

− Crisis situations and preparation for them

5. Special focus − The book's particular focus is on analysing the company's crisis preparedness, as an es-sential element of crisis response planning.


− Research by authors and others Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



2.2.3.2 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION WITH COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS

RC Manual 33: Chemical Manufacturers' Association (1991). Crisis Management Planning Manual for the Chemical Manufacturing Industry. CMA, Washington, D.C., pp. 82.

A "hands-on" introduction to crisis management for chemical industry managers. Crisis management is a proac-tive process, going beyond emergency management, which aims to influence any crisis before, during and after ittakes place, rather than just respond to it. Communication plays a critical role in this process.

− Section I: Planning and preparation− Section II: Response and Recovery− Appendices I-II: Glossary; Bibliography− Appendix III: Basic Steps in a Crisis Management Plan (22 pp.):

Planning and Preparation, Mobilization, Response, Recovery,Post-Incident Evaluation.

Feature Details


− Prepared by Corporate Response Group Inc.


− Chemical manufacturing industry managers

3. Type of risk − Chemical risks

4. Type ofsituation

− Production risks in crisis situations

5. Special focus − Advice about communication (with communities/ neighbours and other parties) in chemi-cal plant emergencies, including planning, providing information and warnings, and in-teracting with journalists


− Member company experience (through collaboration with CMA working group etc.) Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



RC Manual 34: Chemical Manufacturers' Association (1992). Community Emergency Response Exercises Guidebook. CMA, Washington, D.C., pp. 62.

Book of practical guidance on running emergency response exercises for chemical plants.

Contents:− Developing an Exercise Program− Steps in Developing an Exercise− Where to Go for Help− Appendices containing practical tools e.g. list of possible participants, scenarios, sample messages, guidance

on tabletop exercises.

Feature Details


− CMA's Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) programme.− ICF Kaiser Engineers/ ICF Incorporated


− Chemical plant managers

3. Type of risk

− Chemical plants

4. Type ofsituation

− Production risks, emergency situations

5. Special focus − Organising and running exercises for responding to potential chemical plant emergencies 6. Empirical

foundation− Industry/ expert experience Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



RC Manual 35. Verband der Chemischen Industrie (1994). Leitfaden "Krisenmanagement" für die Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (Guidelines on crisis management for publicrelations work). VCI, Frankfurt, pp. 15. [In German]

Summary: This short guide is subtitled "A German contribution to the chemical industry's world-wide Responsi-ble Care programme".

Contents6:− Planning and Precautions− When an emergency occurs− Aftercare (analysing and learning from events, dealing with aftermath - internally and externally)

Feature Details


− Chemical Industry's Responsible Care programme in Germany


− Chemical Plant managers

3. Type of risk − Chemical plant risks

4. Type ofsituation

− Production risks in crisis situations

5. Special focus − Advice on communication about chemical plants with their neighbours, before, duringand after emergencies


− Chemical industry experience (sources not given)− Literature: Issue management, emergency risk communication Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance


6 Translated from German by Resource Book authors


RC Manual 36: Claus, F. Wiedemann, P.M., Bloser, M., Matzke, M., Schütz, H., Voße-bürger, P. (1999) Handlungsempfehlungen zur Information der Öffentlichkeit (nach §11a Störfall-Verordnung). (Recommen-dations on Informing the Public under the Hazardous Incidence Ordinance/ Seveso Directive). Umweltbun-desamt, Berlin, 1999, pp. 40.[In German]

Summary: A manual for the affected companies and authorities on how to fulfil the spirit, and not just the letter, of the Ger-man "Seveso Directive" regulations, which require the public to be informed about possible plant emergencies.The recommendations are based on specific research. The authors argue that providing emergency information isan opportunity for companies to strengthen their image, if they target the information appropriately to differentgroups. They also recommend public relations measures such as open days or school projects to accompany thebasic information and improve people's understanding and retention of it. Openness and transparency are essen-tial ingredients in designing the accident scenarios used in the emergency plan. Research demonstrates that ratherthan awaking fears among the population, such open communication can help to increase trust in the company.

Contents: The introduction discusses the brochure's intended users and the results of the research project on which it isbased. The development and contents of the emergency information are discussed in the next chapter, followedby a chapter on information distribution and accompanying measures. Finally a flow diagram summarising theactions needed, a bibliography, an "11-point checklist", and examples of emergency leaflets are provided.

Feature Details


− Commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt)− Consultants: IKU, Dortmund and MUT, Jülich.


− Corporate and plant managers− Government/ agency officials

3. Type of risk

− Risks from plants falling under the "Seveso" Directive for "industrial major hazards"

4. Type ofsituation

− Production-related risks, especially before and during crisis situations

5. Special focus − Advice about RC content and process


− Research project "Testing the Effectiveness of Emergency Information" for Federal Envi-ronment Agency

− Authors' experience Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances B− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



2.2.3.3 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION WITH CONSUMERS

RC Manual 37: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (1992). Crisis Communications: A Guide for Planning. 1992 Edition. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Public Relations, Seattle, pp. 96.

Summary: Tool to assist airlines in planning their communications response to (future) crises, against the back-ground of expected rises in the absolute numbers of aeroplane accidents (worldwide) in the coming years becauseof the increasing number of flights. This document won a "Golden Quill Award" from the International Associa-tion of Business Communicators. Early reactions to the Guide within the industry were positive.

Contents: Main elements of the Guide are an overview of communications planning and of working with themedia; specific organisational issues for the airline industry; and a set of tools and checklists which can beadapted to local needs. There is also a Glossary, and an Appendix containing further advice on airline crisiscommunication and relationships with the media.

Feature Details


− Approach by several airlines to Boeing's PR department for communications assistance;predicted rise in absolute numbers of airline accidents (not risks)

− Boeing Commercial Airplane Group Public Relations


− Corporate managers (communications/ PR staff, senior managers)

3. Type of risk − Aeroplane crashes 4. Type of

situation− Risks related to service (transportation) industry, crisis situations

5. Special focus − Preparing for and implementing crisis communication in response to airline crashes(NB: Airline crashes differ from chemical product crises in that communication typicallyconcerns relatives and media rather than direct potential victims; however many broadersimilarities, e.g. dealing with outrage, uncertainty about cause, etc.)


− Discussions with world airlines; internal company experience

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



2.2.4 SPECIFIC RISK COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: PARTICIPATION AND DIALOGUE 2.2.4.1 PARTICIPATION: GENERAL

RC Manual 38: Renn, O. Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Klu-wer, Dordrecht. pp. 381. A comprehensive critical evaluation of most of the main methods of public participation, and one of the fewattempts to study these methods from a theoretically coherent viewpoint (i.e. Habermas' discourse theory). How-ever the individual chapters can be read without going into theoretical details. Unusual is the structure, in whicheach participation method is first presented, often by one of its leading exponents, and then discussed critically ina separate chapter by a different author. This leads to a lively and many-faceted discussion, which is neverthelesscoherent and concise.

Contents:− Introductory chapters covering the aims and structure of the book, and an introduction to participation− An evaluative yardstick (application of Habermas' critical theory). Basic criteria deduced and explained are

Fairness and Competence.− Pairs of chapters (presentation & evaluation) on: Citizens' Advisory Committees; Planning Cells(2); Citizens'

Juries(2); Citizen Initiatives; Regulatory Negotiation; Mediation; Voluntary Siting/ Compensation; Dutch Na-tional Debate on Energy Policy.

− Conclusion: The Pursuit of Fair and Competent Citizen Participation. (2) See also Consensus Conferences; these related models may be particularly relevant to conducting broad debates about chemicals,

especially novel ones.

Feature Details


− International workshop on public participation in Morschach, Switzerland, in 1992, fi-nanced by the Humboldt Foundation (Bonn, Germany) and the Swiss Institute of Tech-nology (Zürich).

− The authors include some of the best-known researchers in risk communication and pub-lic participation in Europe and the USA.


− Anyone interested in studying or applying public participation techniques

3. Type of risk − Explicitly aimed at discourse over environmental issues, but the methods can in principlebe applied to collective decisions or conflicts over any kind of risk, or indeed other is-sues.

4. Type ofsituation

− No specific focus: public participation methods may be applied either to avoid, or tosolve crises, or in connection with broader risk-related issues

5. Special focus − Comparison and evaluation of different models of public participation for improvingdiscourse about environmental issues (e.g. by resolving disputes)


− Experts' experience and research− Case studies (e.g. Dutch Energy Study Groups, citizens' initiatives) Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



2.2.4.2 PARTICIPATION INVOLVING COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS

RC Manual 39: BASF Corporation (1989). Community Advisory Panel Handbook. BASF Corporation, Public Affairs, September 1989, pp. 48.

Practical handbook to encourage and guide BASF plant managers to implement Community Advisory Panels.Although modestly produced, the manual's contents are obviously based on solid experience and are presented ina clear and readable way.

Contents:− CAPs' Benefits to BASF Corporation− Community Audit and Start-Up Planning− Selecting BASF Team− Selecting CAP members− Setting the Agenda for the First Meeting− Conducting Regular Meetings− Appendices: sample CAP guidelines [i.e. "constitution"]; sample meeting minutes; facilitator contacts

Feature Details


− Growing need to win community support for plant modernisation (and operation); suc-cessful promotion of CAPs by Chemical Manufacturers' Association as (voluntary)method for implementing Responsible Care programme; positive reports about CAPsfrom other users


− BASF plant managers and public relations staff

3. Type of risk

− Chemical plants

4. Type ofsituation

− Plant-related risks, mainly from normal operation (and plant extension/ modernisation)

5. Special focus − Practical aspects of setting up and running a CAP as a forum for two-way communicationwith local communities


− Not stated (company/ industry experience, presumably incl. CMA literature)

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



RC Manual 40: Chemical Manufacturer's Association (1994). Community Advisory Panel Handbook. CMA, Washington, D.C.

A loose-leaf folder containing background materials for setting up, running and participating in Community Ad-visory Panels (CAPs). The Handbook is intended for use by CMA member companies, and for free distributionto all members of CAPs. The Guide may be copied and distributed in its entirety free of charge. The Handbookis designed as a resource book for both managers and community participants.

Contents: The Guide has a loose-leaf format, with space to add local materials, and includes numerous (22) short casestudies.− Introduction to Responsible Care programme− Advice on membership and running of CAPs− Involving employees− Options for small plants− Appendices: Sample Guidelines, Bylaws, Agenda, Minutes− Citizens' Guide for Environmental Issues (NICS, 1993). This 65-page guide to environmental issues is pro-

duced by a non-profit centre in West Virginia. It covers substantive issues such as air quality and hazardouswaste as well as methodologies such as risk assessment, a 24-page Glossary, and a directory of organisationalcontacts.

Feature Details


− The CAP is a (voluntary) tool developed by the CMA which can help member companiesto implement its Responsible Care programme.

− Ann Green Communications, Inc., Charleston, WV. 2. Intended

readership

− Corporate managers general− Plant managers− Participants in CAPs, e.g. community representatives

3. Type of risk

− Chemical plant risks

4. Type ofsituation

− Mainly during normal operation, and plant extension/ modernisation

5. Special focus − Practical aspects of setting up and running a CAP


− Expert judgement (consultant's experience)

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



RC Manual 41: EEI Public Participation Task Force / Creighton, J.L. (1994). Public Participation Manual (2nd Edn.). Edison Electric Institute (EEI). (Place of publication n/k). pp. 97.

This loose-leaf manual is a clear and practical resource covering the main aspects of why and how to involve thepublic in decisions affecting the development of energy transmission systems.

Contents:− Principles of public participation.− Designing a public participation program− Public participation techniques− The decision-making process and public participation− Evaluating public participation programs− Communicating with the public about risk− Three case studies: Transmission line siting (Florida), substation siting (Niagara), distribution systems (Sac-

ramento)

Feature Details


− Increasing tensions with local communities over operation of electricity plants, new proj-ects etc.

− Consultant: J.L. Creighton 2. Intended

readership− Corporate managers general− Plant managers

3. Type of risk

− Public exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines and facilities

4. Type ofsituation

− Production and (especially) distribution of electricity, normal operation (includingbuilding new distribution systems)

5. Special focus − (Avoiding) community relations problems associated with existing or planned electricityfacilities


− Expert experience− Case studies Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



RC Manual 42: Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability (EM-22),US DOE (Undated). How to Design a Public Accountability Program. US Department of Energy (DOE), Office EM-22.

This booklet deals with the planning of public participation activities within DOE decision-making processes. Itis specially designed for use in a large bureaucracy where decisions are often a result of complex processes in-volving several internal decision-makers.

Contents: The core of the booklet is a three-stage planning model consisting of decision analysis, public participation plan-ning, and implementation planning; however the booklet only discusses the first two stages. Decision analysisfocuses on clarifying what decisions need to be made, who are the internal decision-makers, the stages in makingthe decision, and whether public participation is required. Public participation planning includes setting up aplanning team, identifying issues and stakeholders, setting objectives and selecting techniques. The need to con-sider and involve internal (DOE) stakeholders is emphasised.

Feature Details


− Consultant: J.L. Creighton− Background: The US's nuclear weapons program has led to the accumulation of hazard-

ous and radioactive wastes at 120 Department of Energy (DOE) sites in 36 states and ter-ritories over a period of 50 years. The assessment and remediation of these sites raises se-rious public relations issues, not least because of the DOE's traditional reputation for se-crecy. Further problems exist in relation to the proposed disposal site for high-level nu-clear waste (at Yucca Mountain, Nevada). As a result the DOE has begun to initiate vari-ous public participation programs (see e.g. NRC (1996): Hanford case study, pp. 196-198).


− Decision-makers− Government/ agency officials

3. Type of risk − General (not specified) 4. Type of

situation− Not specified

5. Special focus − Planning public participation in the context of a large, complex bureaucracy with a poorrecord of public openness in the past


− Expert judgement (consultant's experience). Draws on material for a course developedby contractor for Battelle Laboratories.

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



2.2.3.3 PARTICIPATION INVOLVING CONSUMERS

RC Manual 43: Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds.) (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. Science Museum, London, pp 144.

The consensus conference is a model for allowing members of the public to contribute to decisions or debates,for instance about new technologies, in an informed and structured way. A group of 10-16 randomly selectedcitizens write a report on the issue involved, based mainly on a conference at which relevant expert witnessespresent them with information. This collection of papers forms a good introduction to the technique. Most of thecontributions concern experiences in Denmark, where the model is used regularly, in the Netherlands, or con-nected with the United Kingdom's 1994 National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology.

Contents:− Danish beginnings: three papers on consensus conferences in Denmark− European developments: papers on consensus conferences in the Netherlands and the UK− Evaluation: three papers on evaluation of consensus conferences Selected highlights: Grundahl, J. The Danish consensus conference model, 31-40 (summary of Danish experi-ence). Durant, J. An experiment in democracy, 75-80; Lee, G. A consensus conference from the point of view ofa lay-panel member, 81-86 (two papers on UK biotechnology conference).

Feature Details


− Papers presented at international meeting at Science Museum, London, June 1995.


− Decision-makers− Government/ agency officials− Senior corporate managers− General non-specialist audience− Affected groups

3. Type of risk − Various, including biotechnology risks 4. Type of

situation− Mostly applied in early stages of "normal" communication about a topic; not appropriate

in crises. 5. Special focus − The focus here is on the consensus conference technique, as applied to various issues in

Denmark, and to biotechnology in the UK, as well as its evaluation 6. Empirical

foundation− Expert experience− Case studies and evaluation of cases Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



3. CASE STUDIES Case studies are a valuable, indeed essential, tool for learning about risk communication.This chapter describes briefly a range of case studies that in the judgement of the authors areparticularly well suited to this purpose. "Case study" refers here to an account of the sequenceof events involved in a communication episode or case. The case study should focus on thecommunication aspects of the case, in particular the flow of critical information and/ or theprocedural arrangements for communication, and the reactions of the parties involved. In gen-eral the case study should not go into detail about the scientific aspects of the risk itself, apartfrom the basic information required to understand the issue and the major conflicts or uncer-tainties which it involves. Ideally a case study is written by a social scientist or other neutraloutsider; "insider" views have the benefit of direct experience, but the disadvantage of onlyexpressing one viewpoint on the events involved. The case studies are organized broadly according to the same categories used in the review ofrisk communication manuals. The majority of case studies tend to involve crises and are retro-spective: plant-related emergencies, the discovery of acute contamination, public healthscares. Exceptions are case studies involving public information campaigns or participationmethods, where communication is studied proactively. In addition some studies of particularmethods have been carried out (e.g. warning labels). The case studies are mainly of two kinds. One is basically a chronological account of a (inhindsight) relatively discrete communication event, often a crisis. The other focuses more onparticular procedures, structures or methods set up to promote better communication in a realsituation, for instance citizen advisory panels (CAPs). Some cases are a mixture of both (e.g.mediation cases). Where there was a choice of case studies, preference was given to studies that are well struc-tured, clearly written, and which included specific evaluation techniques. However the pro-portion of case studies that can really be considered of high quality is surprisingly small; manyare little more than a brief summary of the most basic facts. This suggests that there is still aneed for closer collaboration between social scientists and practizing risk communicators toevaluate experiences gained.


3.1 LIST OF CASES COVERED BY CATEGORY

CASE STUDY COLLECTIONS

Lieberman, A.J. & Kwon,S.C. (1998, 3rd Ed.).

Facts versus Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares ofRecent Times. ACSH, New York.

Powell, D.A. and Leiss,W. (1997)

Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. The Perils of Poor Risk Communication.McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

Renn, O. and Hampel, J.(eds.) (1998)

Kommunikation und Konflikt: Fallbeispiele aus der Chemie. Königshausen undNeumann, Würzburg.

Gottschalk, J.A. (ed.)(1993)

Crisis Response: Inside Stories on Managing Image under Siege. Visible InkPress, Detroit.

CASE STUDIES: PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO CONSUMERS

Cvetkovich, G. and Earle,T. (1995)

Product warnings and information processing: The case of alcohol warninglabels. European Review of Applied Psychology 45 (1), 17-20.

McKechnie and Davies(1999).

Consumers and risk. In: Bennett, P. and Calman, K. (1999). Risk Communica-tion and Public Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Paris. pp.170-182.

Viscusi, W.K. (1993) Product-risk labeling. A federal responsibility. AEI Press, American EnterpriseInstitute, Washington, D.C.

See further cases in: Powell and Leiss (1997); Soby, Simpson and Ives (1993). CASE STUDIES: CRISIS COMMUNICATION

Fearn-Banks, K. (1996b) Product tampering crises. Chapter Five in: Fearn-Banks, K. (1996a) CrisisCommunications: A Case book Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, New Jersey.

See further cases in: Gottschalk (ed.) (1993); Lieberman and Kwon (1998); Renn and Hampel, eds. (1998)Soby, Simpson and Ives (1993). CASE STUDIES: PARTICIPATION AND DIALOGUE

Cohen, N., Chess, C.,Lynn, F. and Busenberg,G. (1995).

Improving Dialogue: A Case Study of the Community Advisory Panel of ShellOil Company's Martinez Manufacturing Complex. Center for EnvironmentalCommunication, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Lee, G. A consensus conference from the point of view of a lay-panel member. In:Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds.) (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Roleof Consensus Conferences in Europe. Science Museum, London, pp 81-86.

Portier, C.J. and Wolfe,M.S. (1998).

Risk communication: The focus in the NIEHS RAPID program's review of EMFhealth hazards. In: R. Matthes, J.H. Bernhardt and M.H. Repacholi (eds.), Riskperception, risk communication and its application to EMF exposure. ICNIRP5/98, Proceedings International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Communica-tion and Its Application to EMF Exposure, Vienna, Austria, Oct. 22 and 23,1997, 295-301.


3.2 CASE STUDY COLLECTIONS

Case Study Collection 1: Gottschalk, J.A. (ed.) (1993). Crisis Response: Inside Stories on Managing Image under Siege. Visible Ink Press, Detroit, p. 463.

Summary: This is a large collection of quite detailed case studies of responses to both famous and lesser-knowncrises. Most of the cases are written by a key participant in the particular crisis (e.g. company executive, publicrelations agent). The case studies are arranged in three categories: Business Calamities (e.g. Three Mile Island),Consumer Troubles (including product tampering and environmental disasters such as Exxon Valdez) and HumanTragedies (e.g. Pan Am and the Lockerbie bombing, Bhopal). A few more general chapters are dotted aroundwithin the book, e.g. on the "anatomy of a crisis", media aspects and crisis planning. An interesting and well-presented collection which provides the reader with plenty of material for forming conclusions. The book'sstrength and simultaneously its weakness is the reliance on "involved" narrators.

Contents:− Foreword, Introduction− Business Calamities (8 cases, 1 general chapter)− Consumer Troubles (4 cases, 2 general chapters)− Human Tragedies (9 cases, 1 general chapter)− Appendix: The Ultimate Crisis Plan

Feature Details

1. Background,Authors

− Editor is attorney and public affairs consultant


− Corporate managers− Communications specialists (public relations managers, journalists)− Government/ agency officials

3. Type of risk

− Risks to organisational image through environmental damage, product tampering, publichealth and safety issues, violence in workplace, etc.

4. Type ofsituation


5. Special focus − Focus is on coping with the acute phase of a crisis situation (plus brief discussion ofcrisis response planning)

6. Case studymethod

− Mainly authors' direct experience of the particular cases Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



Case Study Collection 2: Lieberman, A.J. and Kwon, S.C. (Third edition, 1998). Facts versus Fears: A Review of the Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times. Prepared for the American Council on Science and Health. June 1998-03000. ACSH, New York, pp. 52.

Summary: A review of 25 significant "unfounded" health scares of the last fifty years in the USA, in chronologi-cal order from the 'Cranberry Scare' of 1959 (pesticide residues) through to the issue of perchloroethylene in aHarlem school, 1997. All concern artificial products. Each case describes the allegations against the product orsubstance, the basis for the charges, the reactions of public and media, and "the actual facts as to what risk (ifany) ever existed." Only cases that are "closed" in regulatory and public terms are included - not those such asbreast implants, where the "final chapter has yet to be written". The authors detect four common themes in thecases: (i) the "indiscriminate presumption" that laboratory tests on rodents can be extrapolated to humans; (ii)ignorance of the basic principle of toxicology, that effects depends on dose; (iii) "The acceptance... of the UnitedNations-conceived 'precautionary principle'..." (iv) the fear of "synthetic" chemicals, even where the same sub-stances exist in nature without causing harm. This is a detailed, conscientiously assembled piece of research. Its central tenets may well find an echo withmany in the chemical industry and many scientists faced with public concerns. It forms a distinct contrast to mostof the risk communication advice reviewed in the rest of this resource book. Rather than take the public's con-cerns seriously, the report dismisses them on the basis that either they are ignorant of scientific information orprinciples (as mentioned above), or have actually been disproved by science. Unfortunately this overlooks manycritical issues, such as scientific uncertainty, differences between scientists, lack of data at the time many healthscares erupt, the importance of trust in communication, and the responsibility of government and industry to tryto maintain or develop it.

Contents:− Introduction− 25 chapters, each of approx. 1½-2 pages, on various health scares (see above)− Conclusions

Feature Details


− Aim of the ACSH is to separate "real, proven health risks - such as cigarettes - fromunfounded health 'scares' based on questionable... or even nonexistent evidence".


− Company/ Government agency− General public, communities

3. Type of risk − Health risks from (synthetic) chemicals 4. Type of

situation− Crisis situations (”health scares”)

5. Special focus − Communication about product and substance risks during ”health scares”, especiallywhere expert and lay perceptions differ

6. Case studymethod

− Based on press articles and scientific papers relating to the risks(social science literature not mentioned)

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations -− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



Case Study Collection 3: Powell, D.A. and Leiss, W. (1997). Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. The Perils of Poor Risk Communication. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

This is a critical analysis of communication about the risks associated with (mainly) food items, based on sevencase studies, and highlighting fundamental errors. It is not only academically serious and practically useful, butalso very readable. In addition to the case studies it presents both a framework for analysing risk communicationproblems, and ten important practical lessons or guidelines.

Contents:− Part One: Waiting for the Science. Diagnostic [analytic tool] for Risk Communication Failures. Case studies

of: BSE in beef; Dioxins; E. Coli (food poisoning); Silicon breast implants.− Part Two: Waiting for the Regulators. Case studies of: Bovine Somatotrophin; Plant biotechnology; PCBs in

human breast milk. Ten Lessons.− Appendix: The Use of Media Analysis in Risk Communication Research

Feature Details


− Authors were at the time of writing the book respectively Assistant Professor in FoodScience, University of Guelph, and holder of the Eco-research Chair in EnvironmentalPolicy, Queen's Uuniversity, Ontario (both in Canada).


− Decision-makers− Government/ agency officials− Corporate managers− General non-specialist audience

3. Type of risk

− Health risks from food contamination

4. Type ofsituation

− Mainly product-related crises

5. Special focus − Deficiencies in the management of (mainly) food product-related crises, and the conse-quences for trust and credibility, based on recent case studies.

6. Case studymethod

− Case studies

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. C− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



Case Study Collection 4: Renn, O. and Hampel, J. (1998). Kommunikation und Konflikt: Fallbeispiele aus der Chemie. (Communication and Conflict: Case Studiesfrom the Chemical Industry). Königshauser und Neumann, Würzburg. [Language: GERMAN]

Summary: This book is aimed particularly at helping chemists and other practitioners better to understand con-flicts over technology, as a contribution to improving communication in disputes about chemicals or the chemicalindustry. Although it is not a manual as such, it provides highly relevant background for those who are involvedin practical communication in the chemical industry, whether in relation to products or production. As well asexpert analyses of conflicts about chemicals, and three case studies, the book reports the discussions about themat a workshop held in the mid-1990s for chemists and social scientists. Another aim of the workshop and of thebook is the promotion of interdisciplinary dialogue as a means of problem-solving.

Contents: The volume contains the main lectures and case studies presented at a workshop for young chemists,sociologists and other participants from academia and industry (28-30 October 1995, Schloß Haigerloch, Ger-many). These articles provide, first, an analysis of public conflicts about chemical products and processes from asociological point of view (O. Renn). The second paper (H.-C. Röglin) looks critically at current approaches topublic relations in connection with technology, and describes an alternative, dialogue-based approach. T. Barbianthen looks at mediation as a specific form of conflict resolution. Case studies on three issues follow: (i) the ef-fects of implementing the public information requirements of the ”Seveso Directive” in Germany; (ii) the conflictover the German beer purity laws in the late 1980s; and (iii) a conflict over plans by Hoechst to construct a GMinsulin production facility. At the end of the book conclusions from the working groups are presented, and a concluding chapter by the Edi-tors on opportunities for a new culture of mutual understanding in relation to the chemical industry. Feature Details


− Workshop held within programme ”Chemistry and Social Sciences” of the Stifterverbandfür die deutsche Wissenschaft (German Science Donors’ Association).

− Editors are from the Center for Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberg, Stutt-gart.


− Young scientists in chemical industry− Chemical industry managers− Social scientists interested in conflict over technology− General non-specialist audience

3. Type of risk − Chemical production processes and products (including ‘life science’ products and ge-netic engineering)

4. Type ofsituat.

− Mainly ”normal” (but controversial) communication situations

5. Special focus − Conflicts between companies and public over various aspects of chemical risks (productsor production, crisis or normal situations)

6. Case studymethod

− Expert judgement− Case study− Sociological and RC/ RP literature Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance


3.3 CASE STUDY EXAMPLES CONSUMER INFORMATION / GENERAL


Case study 1: McKechnie, S. and Davies, S. (1999). Consumers and risk. In: Bennett, P. and Calman, K. (1999). Risk Communication and Public Health.Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, Paris. pp. 170-182.

Summary: Although not strictly a ”case study” like the others presented here, this is a useful discussion of thedeficiencies in current approaches to risk communication from the viewpoint of a consumers’ lobby group. Theauthors make the key assertion that government and its agencies who regulate risks ”are out of touch with thechanged environment in which they are operating” (an assertion that fits well with the concepts of issue manage-ment: see relevant references under Risk Communication Manuals). Changes include the decline in deferencetowards all forms of authority, and specifically towards scientists (in the UK), and the information revolution,which means that ”we are all experts now – or think we are” while governments often continue to guard their owninformation very closely. Attempts to modernise government often fail to solve these problems because theyneglect the ”hidden substructure” of committees and unaccountable bodies which actually take risk managementdecisions. A new approach to risk communication would include involving consumers from the start of the riskanalysis process; increasing transparency (e.g. through a Freedom of Information Act); and increasing publicparticipation in regulation by appointing consumer representatives to expert advisory committees, and consider-ing novel methods such as referenda and citizens’ juries.

Contents: Introduction; The wider environment; The changing nature of risk; Individualism and regulation;Communicating about risk.

Feature Details


− Paper appears in book collated by UK Department of Health− Authors are respectively Director and Principal Policy Researcher of the Consumers’

Association, the main interest group for consumers in the UK. 2. Intended

readership

− Government/ agency officials− Corporate managers− Interested lay people

3. Type of risk − Consumer product risks 4. Type of

situation− Normal or crisis situations

5. Special focus − Consumer’s viewpoint 6. Case study

method− NGO experience Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations B− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances B

7. Relevance



CONSUMER INFORMATION/ PACKAGING INFORMATION

Case Study 2: Viscusi, W.K. (1993) Product-risk labeling. A federal responsibility. AEI Studies in Regulation and Federalism. AEI Press,American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. (distributed by UPA, Inc., Lanham, MD/ London, UK),pp. 83.

Summary: The main focus of this study is to investigate the economic ramifications of hazard warnings of foodand drug products. The authors argues that federal regulations requiring the labeling of food, drugs, cosmeticsand medical devices impose substantial burdens on firms, in terms of risk assessments and risk communication(labeling). The author also investigates whether such hazard warnings are useful for the intended beneficiaries:the consumers. This question is addressed in an experimental study (chapter 5). In the study, participants had tocompare different types of labels for implied risk level. The reference type of hazard warning was based onCalifornia’s Proposition 65 which mandated hazard warnings for risks of cancer and reproductive toxicity fromproducts, jobs and the environment. Specifically, Proposition 65 requires firms to label the products if the lifetime risk for cancer is 1/100,000 (or higher), that is one case of cancer for every 100,000 product users overlifetime product use. The other types of warning labels refer to risks (saccharin, cigarettes) which are substan-tially higher than the threshold of 1/100,000 used in Proposition 65. The results how that a majority of the sub-jects view the risks expressed in the Proposition 65 label as equal or higher to the risks expressed in the otherwarnings (which are actually much higher). The results of this experiment suggest that consumers may severely misperceive (overestimate) the risks of aproduct when these risks are very low but hazard warnings are nevertheless required and given to the consumers.

Contents− Hazard Warnings− State Warnings for Food, Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical Devices− Policy Scope and Warnings Criteria− Costs of Complicance, Warnings and Reformulation− Do Consumers Benefit from Informational Costs?− Conclusion− Appendix: Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: Chemicals known to the State of

California to Cause Cancer


− California’s ”Proposition 65” law from 1986, requiring manufacturers to inform publicabout risks of cancer or reproductive toxicity from their products

− Author is G.E. Allen Professor of Economics at Duke University2. Intended3. readership

− Regulators, decision-makers and opinion-formers− Corporate managers− Researchers− Interested lay people

3. Type of risk − Chemical (cancer or reproductive toxicity) 4. Type of

situation− Use of warning labels for food and drug products;

specifically California’s Proposition 65 5. Special focus − Design (content) of warning labels 6. Case study

method− Experiment

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations -− Providing information about products/ substances A− Encouraging safe product use etc. A− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



CONSUMER INFORMATION/ EMERGENCIES

Case study 3: Fearn-Banks, K. (1996b) Product tampering crises. Chapter Five in: Fearn-Banks, K. (1996a) Crisis Communications: A Case book Approach. Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.

Summary: This chapter tells the story of how companies responded to some well-known cases of product tam-pering (mainly in the USA), including: the Tylenol case (Johnson and Johnson, 1982); the Alpac and Pepsi”syringe-in-the-can” cases, 1993; and the glass allegedly found in Gerber baby food jars, 1982. The most usefulaspect is perhaps the comparison between the cases, which shows that (i) no one kind of response is correct: itdepends on the case, e.g. whether the company produces many products or mainly one kind of product; (ii) acompany’s existing reputation for safe products, but also its reputation for openness, and good relations with themedia, etc. all count in its favour in a crisis; (iii) it is essential for the company to ascertain the facts as fully andrapidly as possible.

Contents: Case 7: Johnson & Johnson and the Tylenol Murders; Case 8: Alpac Corporation and the OriginalSyringe-in-the-Can; Case 9: Pepsi and the National Syringe-in-the-Can Scare; Case 10: Pepsi/ Seven-Up Bever-age Group of Louisiana and the Syringe Hoaxes; Discussion of Chapter 5.

Feature Details


− Author is on the staff of the School of Communications, University of Washington.



3. Type of risk − Product tampering risks as a threat to the corporation

4. Type ofsituation


5. Special focus − How to communicate in cases of alleged product tampering

6. Case studymethod

− Case literature, media reports

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances A

7. Relevance



PARTICIPATION/ SITE-RELATED

Case Study 4: Cohen, N., Chess, C., Lynn, F. and Busenberg, G. (1995). Improving Dialogue: A Case Study of the Community Advisory Panel of Shell Oil Company's MartinezManufacturing Complex. Center for Environmental Communication, Rutgers University, New Bruns-wick, New Jersey. August 1995, pp. 66.

Summary: Community Advisory Panels (CAPs) are one method for implementing the CMA 's Responsible Careprogram. The program is mandatory for all 190 member companies, which represent roughly 90% of US chemi-cal production capacity. CAPS are not a mandatory form of implementation, but have spread widely with CMApromotion (the total number of CAPs nationally in 1994 was estimated at 215). This report claims to be the firstsystematic evaluation of a CAP (along with a companion volume covering the Vulcan Chemical Company'sCAP). Shell's CAP in Martinez is rated a success in terms of its impact on company behaviour, communicationand trust. Problems include maintaining interest in the CAP, and extending communication to the wider commu-nity. It is noted that the CAP has not yet been tested by any major accident or oil spill.

Contents: Background; Accomplishments of Shell CAP; CAP Structure; Lessons Learned; Appendices.

Feature Details


− Funded by Hazardous Substance Management Research Centre, New Jersey− Researchers: Rutgers University and University of North Carolina


− Plant managers and public relations staff− Researchers

3. Type of risk

− Petrochemical (oil refinery)

4. Type ofsituation

− Mainly normal situations (may also help prepare emergency response)

5. Special focus − Effectiveness of CAP for managing relations between a plant and its community

6. Case studymethod

− Interviews, questionnaire, analysis of documents/ reports Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances C

7. Relevance



PARTICIPATION/ SUBSTANCES AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Case study 5: Lee, G. (1995).

A consensus conference from the point of view of a lay-panel member. In: Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds.)(1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. Science Museum,London, pp 81-86.

Summary: An account of the experiences of one member of the lay panel at the UK's first National ConsensusConference on Plant Biotechnology, held in London from 2-4 November 1994. After selection for the panel inJuly 1994 via a newspaper advertisement, panel members were sent information about the topic and then sent ontwo preparatory weekends (September and October) where various experts made presentations and the panelbegan to plan its written report. A facilitator provided by the organisers proved to be a mixed blessing: althoughhe was successful in keeping the group "on course" during the weekends, the panel felt that he became too in-volved in the subject matter, and later decided, at the conference, to finish the report without his assistance. Lee'sreport makes clear that the task of dealing with the flood of information and turning it into a report also placedthe panel members under some pressure. The conference itself took place in the Science Museum and consistedof two further days of presentations to the panel from experts, companies, and environmental and consumergroups, in front of an invited audience. The panel was to present its report on the final day. The result was adrafting session lasting until 05:30 in the morning, for which Lee was elected chairman. This was a considerablechallenge for the group, which they mastered successfully (the report itself is reproduced in Joss, S. and Durant,J. (eds.) 1995, 135-139). The report was received positively by most of the audience, "particularly by the industryrepresentatives present who breathed an audible sigh of relief". Lee concludes that he definitely enjoyed the ex-perience (and would even accept the role of chairman again). However the time-scale ought to be adjusted forfuture conferences, allowing more time for preparation and report writing.

Contents: The first preparatory weekend; The second preparatory weekend; The conference; Reaction to thereport; Reflections.

Feature Details


− Conference funded by UK's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Counciland organised by Science Museum, London

− Author was participant in the Conference 2. Intended

readership

− Government/ agency officials− Senior executives and managers− Researchers− Interested lay people

3. Type of risk − Potential risks of genetic engineering (plant biotechnology) 4. Type of

situat.− Highly uncertain risks

5. Special focus − Public participation in technology/ risk assessment using consensus conference method 6. Case study

method− Personal experience Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations C− Providing information about products/ substances -− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



Case Study 6: Portier, C. J. and Wolfe, M.S. (1998). Risk communication: The focus in the NIEHS RAPID program's review of EMF health hazards. In: R.Matthes, J.H. Bernhardt and M.H. Repacholi (eds.), Risk perception, risk communication and its Applica-tion to EMF exposure. ICNIRP 5/98, Proceedings International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Com-munication and its application to EMF Exposure, Vienna, Austria, Oct. 22 and 23, 1997, 295-301.

Summary: This paper describes an innovative effort to involve citizens' groups in a highly technical risk assess-ment process. It concerns the US's Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information DisseminationProgram (EMF-RAPID), which began in 1992. This programme has apparently, from its inception, activelysought input from both experts and lay people regarding its policies and who should participate. The pro-gramme's process of analysis and deliberation involves scientists, advocacy groups and regulatory agencies. Two-way communication with advocacy groups is achieved mainly through a national EMF advisory committee, onwhich these groups are represented. This committee also has a say in the membership of the EMF-RAPID toxi-cological review process. Some of the advocacy groups representatives also participate directly in the toxicologi-cal reviews, which seems to have positive effects. Another productive means for two-way communication hasbeen publication of findings on the World-Wide Web, with the opportunity for comment, which has been exten-sively used. This programme seems to illustrate well some of the key concepts advocated by the NRC Committee on RiskCharacterization (1996). Deliberation and analysis are clearly intertwined, and efforts have been made to broadenthe range of input into the deliberative processes. Importantly, the results of this broadening are rated by theorganisers as having positive effects on both the process's quality, and its acceptability to advocacy groups.

Contents: Introduction; Communicating with scientists; Communicating with advocacy groups; Communicatingwith regulatory agencies.

Feature Details


− The authors work for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, USA andservice the EMF-RAPID Program.


− Government/ agency officials− Researchers

3 Type of risk − Electromagnetic fields risks (especially low-frequency fields) 4. Type of

situation− Normal communication situations

5. Special focus − Communication between scientists and citizens' groups within the risk assessment process 6. Case study

method− Personal experience

Relevance to following functions in relation to consumers and chemicals: A high, B moderate, C slight− Building/ maintaining trust in organisations A− Providing information about products/ substances C− Encouraging safe product use etc. -− Crisis communication about products/ substances -

7. Relevance



4. MAJOR INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMESON RISK COMMUNICATION

4.1 WHO-EUROPE ENVIRONMENTAL ANDHEALTH RISKS COMMUNICATION PROGRAMME

Dates: 1990-1998.Region: EuropeSummary: This programme was organised by the WHO-Europe's Centre for Environment andHealth in collaboration with the Society for Risk Analysis-Europe and the Centre for Envi-ronmental Risk Management, University of East Anglia (see Center for Environmental Risk).It organised a seminar in Ulm, Germany in 1990 and commissioned a book of case studies andguidelines on risk communication. The WHO's interest in risk communication as such has notbeen maintained; however WHO-Europe does continue to sponsor a health communicationnetwork.Output: Gray, P.C.R., Stern, R.M. and Biocca, M. (1998).

Contact: WHO Regional Office for EuropeCommunication and Public AffairsScherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen, DenmarkTel. (45) 39 17 13 36 and 39 17 13 44Fax (45) 39 17 18 80

4.2 EMF RISK PROJECT: RISK COMMUNICATION

Dates: 1996 - (ongoing)Region: World (NB Europe, north America, Australia).Summary: The EMF Risk Project coordinates efforts to research the risks of electromagneticfields. A major part of its work is concerned with understanding public perceptions of EMFrisks and how to communicate about them. The Program has held two major internationalseminars on these topics in Europe and North America respectively and is in the process ofproducing, with an international team of experts, further publications as below.Output: Two sets of conference proceedings are available (Vienna 1997, Ottawa 1998). Amonograph on risk perception and communication, and a practical handbook on communica-tion about electromagnetic fields risks are in production.

Contact: Dr. Michael H RepacholiRadiation Protection and Global Hazards AssessmentOffice of Global and Integrated Environmental HealthWorld Health Organization, CH-1211 Geneva 27, SwitzerlandTel: +41 22 791 3427, Fax:+41 22 791 4123

Risk Communication for Chemical Products – An OECD Background Paper2

4.3 TRUSTNET

Dates: 1997- 2000Region: European UnionSummary: TRUSTNET is a program on the "social management of risk" sponsored by theEuropean Commission's Radioprotection Directorate. Its aim is "to develop more coherent,comprehensive and equitable approaches for evaluating, comparing and managing health andenvironmental risks". Specifically it is intended to determine the factors influencing thecredibility, effectiveness and legitimacy of the regulation of hazardous activities; to set up aEuropean network of experts and decision makers in government departments and corpora-tions; and to develop an interdisciplinary approach and the basis for a future research pro-gramme into risks management and protection of health and the environment.Output: The Programme has run a number of international seminars (involving speakers suchas the President of the Society for Risk Analysis) which have been summarised as reports forthe participants. Unfortunately the Network's activity seems to have dropped off recently.The Website has some useful documents on social trust and other topics.Website: http://trustnet.cepn.asso.fr/

Contact: Mutadis Consultants14 rue de Belzunce 75010PARISTel: 33 1 45 96 09 19Fax: 33 1 45 96 07 26E-Mail: [email protected]

4.4 WHO HEALTH COMMUNICATION NETWORK

A Network for health care professionals, journalists, policymakers and so on, launched in1998. Its most recent report (1999) is available as a book.Website: http://www.who.dk/London99/cpa01.htm

Contact: WHO Regional Office for EuropeCommunication and Public AffairsScherfigsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen, DenmarkTel. (45) 39 17 13 36 and 39 17 13 44Fax (45) 39 17 18 80


5. ADDRESSES AND INTERNET SITES

5.1 RELEVANT ORGANISATIONS

RESEARCH CENTRES AND INSTITUTES

Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-WürttembergIndustriestr. 5D-70565 StuttgartGermanyTel.: ++49-711-9063-0http://www.ta-akademie.de

Centre for Environmental RiskSchool of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwich NR4 7TJ United KingdomTel (+44) (0)1603 593129Fax (+44) (0)1603 507719http://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/acad_depts/env/cer

CONSENSUS BUILDING INSTITUTE131 Mt. Auburn Street,Cambridge, MA 02138 USA;Tel: 617 492 1414; fax: 617 492 1919E-mail: [email protected]

The Macleod Institue for Environmental AnalysisES 1040, 2500 University Drive NWCalgary, AlbertaCanada T2N 1N4Tel: +403-220-5271Fax: +403-282-1287E-mail: [email protected]

Program Group Humans, Environment, TechnologyResearch Centre Jülich GmbHD-52425 Jülich –GermanyTel: +49-2461-615890Fax: +49-2461-612950www.fz-juelich.de/mut


PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

American Chemical Society1155 Sixteenth Street, NWWashington DC, 20036Phone: 800-227-5558 (US only)+1-202-872-4600 (outside the US)Fax: 202-872-4615E-mail: [email protected]://www.acs.org

Issue Management Councilwww.IssueManagement.org207 Loudoun St., S.E.Leesburg, VA 20175-3115U.S.A.Tel: +1-703-777-8450

Risk Assessment and Policy Associationhttp://www.fplc.edu/tfield/rapa.htmCarol Ruh, Assistant Secretary-TreasurerRisk Assessment & Policy AssociationFranklin Pierce Law Center2 White StreetConcord, NH 03301Tel: +1-603-228-1541Fax +1-603-224-3342

Society for Risk Analysis (SRA)1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 402McLean VA 22101www.sra.org

SRA's European Section (NB: membership is dealt with centrally at US headquarters):

SRA-EuropeProfessor Joyce Tait, Treasurer,SUPRA,The University of Edinburgh,High School Yards,Edinburgh EH1 1LZTel. +44 (0)131 650 9174Fax +44 (0)131 650 6399email [email protected]


Verein deutscher Ingenieure (German Engineers' Association)Postfach 101139D-40002 DüsseldorfGermanyTel.: ++49-(0)211-6214-0Fax: ++49-(0)211-6214-575http://www.vdi.de/E-Mail: [email protected]

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS

Chemical Manufacturer's Association1300 Wilson BoulevardArlington, Va.,Tel: +1-703-741-5000http://www.cmahq.com/

Verband der chemischen Industrie (German Chemical Manufacturer's Association)Karlstraße 21D-60329 FrankfurtGermanyTel: +49-69-2556-1564Fax: +49-69-2556-1612www.vci.de

NGOS

American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)1995 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York NY 10023-5860+1-212-362-7044+1-212-362-4919acsh@acsh.orgwww.acsh.org

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

See Chapter 4, Major International Programmes on Risk Communication.


5.2 WEBSITE REVIEWS

5.2.1 ADVICE ON RISK COMMUNICATION AND RISK MANAGEMENT

ATSDR Primer on Health Risk Communication Principles and Practiceshttp://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/primer.htmlSee RC Manuals for review.

Center of Technology Assessment in Baden-Württemberghttp://www.ta-akademie.de (German and English)This well laid out site contains service information, descriptions of the Centre's work,individual projects and findings, and an extensive publications list (a small number ofwhich can be downloaded in PDF format). The Centre's publications include many,mainly in German, on risk communication and public participation in decision-making.The main pages are available in English.

Centre for Environmental Riskhttp://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/acad_depts/env/cerDescribes the Centre's projects and publications on risk management, risk communica-tion and other areas.

Consensus Building Institutewww.cbi-web.orgThis site provides an attractive overview of the work of the Institute in environmentaland other forms of dispute resolution, and plenty of leads for obtaining further informa-tion. The Institute's Newsletter Consensus since April 1997 is available online, and fur-ther publications can be ordered.

Program Group Humans, Environment, Technologywww.fz-juelich.de/mut (German and English)The site contains service information, descriptions of the Group's work, and a publica-tions list (some of which can be downloaded in PDF format). The Group has publishedextensively on risk communication, risk perception, public participation, mediation etc.The main Web pages and some key reports are available in English.

Issue Management Councilwww.IssueManagement.orgOfficial site of the Issue Management Council, a professional organisation for issuesmanagers or their companies; member companies include many of the biggest names onthe US corporate scene. Public part of site provides information on the Council and itsmember companies, notices about events, and a useful Products section including detailsof IMC publications (Issue Action Publications). Members have access to additionalpages.

Risk Analysis Centerhttp://www.risk-analysis-center.com/This is a commercial site run by ITC publications, a UK-based company. After regis-tering (free of charge) the user has access to a database of articles drawn from both thegeneral and the scientific media, on a wide range of risk-related topics. The database is


searchable by index (hierarchical categories) or full text (keyword) search; however theterm "risk communication" produced no hits. There is also a fairly good list of Weblinks on risk. Overall, has the makings of an extremely useful site, but needs broaderbalance.

Risk Assessment and Policy Associationhttp://www.fplc.edu/tfield/rapa.htmThis Web site introduces the Association and provides the usual information. The out-standing feature of the site is the link to the Associations's Journal, Risk (see below).

RiskWorldwww.riskworld.comAn important reference point for natural science information on risk assessment andmanagement in the USA. It opens with comprehensive news stories on risk-related sci-ence, and has a wide range of services including bookstore, jobs, searchable news ar-chives, an abstracts library, and announcements about events, courses and positions ofinterest. It is updated daily and is maintained by a professional technical communica-tions company. Risk communication is not highlighted as a separate issue, but many in-dividual relevant items can be found using search facility. Who actually funds the site isnot clear, although it was originally closely associated with the Society for Risk Analy-sis.

Society for Risk Analysiswww.sra.orgNB: Material prior to March 1997 is held on RiskWorld site.This site contains basic information about the Society, and some resources including anextensive glossary of risk terms, and selected links including one to the RISKANAL E-mail discussion list. See also Risk Analysis below.

UK Department of Healthwww.doh.gov.uk/pointers.htmSee review in RC Manuals chapter.

JOURNALS

Journal of Risk Researchwww.sraeurope.comOfficial interdisciplinary journal of the Society for Risk Analysis – Europe. The webaddress provides information for authors and on subscriptions.

Journal of Risk, Decision and PolicyA broad-based journal with input from various social sciences. Instructions for authorsare available on the Cambridge University Press site.http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/journals/rdp/rdpifc.htm

Risk. Official journal of the Risk Assessment & Policy Association, RAPA.www.fplc.edu/RISK/rskarts.htmThis journal forms a contrast to the other risk-related journals in having a stronger ori-entation towards law, policy and social sciences. The web site is outstandingly useful: it


not only provides, free of charge, annotated indices to the articles, but the full texts aswell.


Risk AnalysisThis is the best-known professional professional journal for risk researchers from thenatural and social sciences. However although it certainly has an interdisciplinary range,natural science analyses tend to predominate. Contents from Dec 1996-Dec 1998 postedat: www.sra.org. Contents and abstracts after Dec 1998 posted at: http://www.wkap.nl/journalhome.htm/0272-4332 (link available on SRA site).

5.2.2 INFORMATION FOR CONSUMERS, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURS

PLANT EMISSIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

Environmental Defense Fund's Chemical Scorecardwww.scorecard.orgThe Chemical Scorecard provides users with information about industrial emissions intheir (or any other) area, or rank and compare pollution between areas anywhere in theUSA. In addition, the database contains (apparently up-to-date) information on 6,800chemicals' health and environmental effects. The site has an innovative layout and goodusability. EDF claims that the Scorecard provides ”the most up-to-date and extensivecollection of environmental information available on the web today”. The site is in-tended to enable individuals: ”Information is power – once you learn about an envi-ronmental problem, Scorecard encourages and enables you to take action - you can fax apolluting company, contact your elected representatives, or volunteer with environ-mental organizations working in your community.”

Factory Watch (UK)www.foe.co.uk/factorywatch/intros/local.htmlInformation on emissions from plants controlled by Environment Agency in Englandand Wales, made available by Friends of the Earth (UK). Similar idea to EDF's Chemi-cal Scorecard. 'Right-to-know' is much less comprehensive in UK than in USA, so in-formation is somewhat more limited.

European Commission, Directorate-General "Environment"http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/environment/index_en.htm [English]

A highly informative and well-maintained site about environmental issues and policy in theEuropean Union. Current EU Policy is covered under Environ-ment => Policy Areas. Under more specific titles, e.g. =>Chemicals and Biotechnology, the EU policies and legislation ineach area are explained. Sub-areas under Chemicals/ Biotech-nology are Dangerous Substances, Plant Protection Products,Chemicals and genetically modified organisms, Chemical Acci-dent Prevention, Preparedness and Response, and Dioxin expo-sure and health. A wealth of material is buried under these titles,e.g. a whole ”mini-site” on the Seveso Directive, a large reporton dioxins in PDF format, etc.

(For a complete list of all European Commission DGs, see:http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs_en.htm)

http://www.wkap.nl/


GENERAL CONSUMER INFORMATION

Federal Consumer Information Centerwww.pueblo.gsa.gov/Information on consumer topics, including food and health. No specific chemicals sec-tion. Full-text versions of brochures available in html and/or pdf.

European Commission, Directorate-General "Health and Consumer protection"http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24This site is presently under reconstruction, but nonetheless a good source of information(in various languages). It contains general information about the DG, a Library of leg-islation, press releases, publications, surveys etc., an Events list, and an Internet Forumwhich is intended to provide Consumer Associations with the opportunity to debate up-coming legislation, Commission actions etc., discuss topics among themselves and ex-change information (membership restricted to Consumer Associations). There is a freeE-mail news subscription service. Quick links are provided to the ”Most Popular Top-ics” including Agriculture, Foodstuffs and Health, and BSE. The former includes in-formation on e.g. the agricultural use of hormones. Quality of presentation and responsetime are also good.

LABELLING SCHEMES

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foodlabel/newlabel.html#nutriExplanation of new food label in USA.

Blauer Engel (German "Blue Angel" Eco-Label)www.blauer-engel.de [Deu, Eng]

EU Eco-Labelhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel

HEALTH AND CHEMICALS INFORMATION

See also Factory Watch under "Plant Emissions", above.

CFSAN/ FDA Chemistry linksCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Food and Drug Admini-stration (FDA).http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/chemist.html

Verband der chemischen Industrie (German Chemical Manufacturers' Association)www.vci.deA glossy site with plenty of material (slightly hard to locate) on German "ResponsibleCare" programme, statements on sustainable development etc. In German only.

6. ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION Term

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CMA Chemical Manufacturer's Association

DOE Department of Energy (USA)

EEI Edison Electric Institute

EMF Electromagnetic fields

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ILGRA Inter-Departmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment

NRC National Research Council (USA)

RC Risk communication

RP Risk perception

SARA Title III Title III of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorisation Act(SARA), 1986

SRA Society for Risk Analysis

UK United Kingdom

VCI Verein der chemischen Industrie (German Chemical Manufactur-ers' Association)

VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (German Engineers' Association)

WHO World Health Organisation

WHO-Europe WHO Regional Office for Europe

7. REFERENCES


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1997). A Primer on HealthRisk Communication Principles and Practices. ATSDR Website,http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/primer.html#FACTORS

Affleck, M.E. (1998). RadarScan Issues Management. Issue Action Publications, 207 Lou-don St., SE, Leesburg, VA 20175, pp. 98.

American Chemical Society (ACS) (1988). Chemical Risk Communication: Preparing forCommunity Interest in Chemical Release Data. American Chemical Society, Washing-ton, D.C., October 1988, pp. 28.

BASF Corporation (1989). Community Advisory Panel Handbook. BASF Corporation, Pub-lic Affairs, September 1989, pp. 48.

Bennett, P. and Calman, K. (1999). Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford, pp. 272.

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (1992). Crisis Communications: A Guide for Planning.1992 Edition. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Public Relations, Seattle, pp. 96.

Chemical Manufacturers' Association (1988). Title III Community Awareness Workbook.Chemical Manufacturers' Association, Washington, D.C. pp 74.

Chemical Manufacturers' Association (1991). Crisis Management Planning Manual for theChemical Manufacturing Industry. CMA, Washington, D.C., pp. 82.

Chemical Manufacturers' Association (1992). Community Emergency Response ExercisesGuidebook. CMA, Washington, D.C., pp. 62.

Chemical Manufacturer's Association (1994). Community Advisory Panel Handbook. CMA,Washington, D.C.

Chess, C. (1988). Encouraging Effective Risk Communication: Suggestions for Agency Man-agement. Submitted to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Divisionof Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey. Environmental Communication Re-search Program, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 9.

Chess, C. (1992). How to plan for Communication with the Public: Development of a Semi-nar for Environmental Managers. Environmental Communication Research Program,Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 45.

Chess, C., Hance, B.J. and Sandman, P.M. (1988). Improving Dialogue with Communities: AShort Guide for Government Risk Communication. Submitted to New Jersey Depart-ment of Environmental Protection, Division of Science and Research, Trenton, NewJersey. Environmental Communication Research Program, Rutgers University, NewBrunswick, New Jersey, pp. 30.

Chess, C., Hance, B.J. and Sandman, P.M. (1989). Planning Dialogue with Communities: A

Orientations 11

Risk Communication Workbook. Environmental Communication Research Program,Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. 40.

Claus, F. Wiedemann, P.M., Bloser, M., Matzke, M., Schütz, H., Voßebürger, P. (1999)Handlungsempfehlungen zur Information der Öffentlichkeit (nach §11a Störfall-Verordnung). (Recommendations on Informing the Public under the Hazardous Inci-dence Ordinance/ Seveso Directive). Umweltbundesamt, Berlin, 1999, pp. 40.

Cohen, N., Chess, C., Lynn, F. and Busenberg, G. (1995). Improving Dialogue: A Case Studyof the Community Advisory Panel of Shell Oil Company's Martinez ManufacturingComplex. Center for Environmental Communication, Rutgers University, New Bruns-wick, New Jersey. August 1995, pp. 66.

Covello, V.T. and Allen, F.W. (1988). Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. OPA-87-020. April 1988. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (leaflet)

Covello, V.T., McCallum, D.B., Pavlova, M. (eds) (1989a). Effective Risk Communication:The Role and Responsibility of Government and Non-Government Organizations. Ple-num Press, New York, 1989. (pp. 370).

Covello, V.T., McCallum, D.B., Pavlova, M. (1989b). Principles and Guidelines for EffectiveRisk Communication. Chapter 2 in: V.T. Covello, D.B. McCallum, M. Pavlova (eds)(1989a). Effective Risk Communication: the role and responsibility of Government andNon-Government Organizations. Plenum Press, New York, 1989. (pp. 14)

Covello, V.T., Sandman, P.M. and Slovic, P. (1988). Risk Communication, Risk Statisticsand Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers. Chemical Manufacturers Asso-ciation, Washington, D.C., pp. 75.

EEI Public Participation Task Force / Creighton, J.L. (1994). Public Participation Manual(2nd Edn.). Edison Electric Institute (EEI). (Place of publication n/k). pp. 97.

Fearn-Banks, K. (1996a). Crisis Communications: A Case book Approach. Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, pp. 330.

Gottschalk, J.A. (ed.) (1993). Crisis Response: Inside Stories on Managing Image underSiege. Visible Ink Press, Detroit, p. 463.

Gray, P.C.R., Stern, R.M. and Biocca, M. (eds.) (1998) Communicating about Risks to Envi-ronment and Health in Europe. Published on behalf of the World Health OrganisationRegional Office for Europe in collaboration with the Centre for Environmental and RiskManagement, University of East Anglia, UK. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,pp. 409.

Gutteling, J.M. and Wiegman, O. (1996). Exploring Risk Communication. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, pp. 221.


Hance, B.J., Chess, C. and Sandman, P.M. (1988). Improving Dialogue with Communities: ARisk Communication Manual for Government. Environmental Communication ResearchProgram, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, pp. c. 91.

Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA) (1998). Risk Communication.A Guide to Regulatory Practice. Health and Safety Executive, London, pp. 22.

Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds.) (1995). Public Participation in Science: The Role of ConsensusConferences in Europe. Science Museum, London, pp 144.

Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P. et al (1988). The social amplification of risk: a con-ceptual framework. Risk Analysis, Vol. 8 (2), 1988, pp 177-187.

Lee, G. (1995). A consensus conference from the point of view of a lay-panel member. In:Joss, S. and Durant, J. (eds.) (1995) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Con-sensus Conferences in Europe. Science Museum, London, pp 81-86.

Lieberman, A.J. and Kwon, S.C. (Third edition, 1998). Facts versus Fears: A Review of theGreatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times. Prepared for the American Councilon Science and Health. June 1998-03000. ACSH, New York, pp. 52.

Lundgren, R.E. (1994). Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environ-mental, Safety, and Health Risks. Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio (pp. 175)

McKechnie, S. and Davies, S. (1999). Consumers and risk. In: Bennett, P. and Calman, K.(1999). Risk Communication and Public Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford,New York, Paris. pp. 170-182.

Mitroff, I. and Pearson, C. (1993). Crisis Management: A Diagnostic Guide for ImprovingYour Organization's Crisis-Preparedness. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp.139.

Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Lave, L., Atman, C. (1992). Communicating riskto the public. Environmental Science and Technology, 26 (11), pp. 2049-2056.

Mulligan, J., McCoy, E., Griffiths, A. (1998). Principles of Communicating Risks. TheMacleod Institute for Environmental Analysis, University of Calgary, Alberta, pp. 57.

National Research Council (1989). Improving Risk Communication. National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C., pp. 332.

National Research Council Committee on Risk Characterization (1996). Understanding Risk:Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. P.C. Stern and H.V. Fineberg, eds. Na-tional Academy Press, Washington D.C. pp. 249.

Obermeier, O.-P. (1999). Die Kunst der Risikokommunikation (The Art of Risk Communicati-on). Gerling Akademie Verlag, München. pp. 211.

Orientations 13

Renn, O. Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence in CitizenParticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Office of Intergovernmental and Public Accountability (EM-22), US DOE (Undated). How toDesign a Public Accountability Program. US Department of Energy (DOE), OfficeEM-22.

Powell, D.A. and Leiss, W. (1997). Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. The Perils of Poor RiskCommunication. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

Renn, O. and Hampel, J. (1998). Kommunikation und Konflikt: Fallbeispiele aus der Che-mie. (Communication and Conflict: Case Studies from the Chemical Industry). Königs-hauser und Neumann, Würzburg.

Renn, O. Webler, T. and Wiedemann, P. (eds.) (1995). Fairness and Competence in CitizenParticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 381.

Soby, B.A., Simpson, A.C.D. and Ives, D. (1993). Integrating public and scientific judge-ments into a tool kit for managing food-related risks, Stage 1: Literature review andfeasibility study. Research Report No. 16, Centre for Environmental and Risk Manage-ment (CERM), School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK. pp.125.

Soby, B.A., Simpson, A.C.D., Ives, D. and Hedegård, J.B.O. (1992). Consumer Attitudes toRisk and the Effectiveness of Home and Leisure Safety Campaigns in the EuropeanCommunity. Research report No. 15. Centre for Environmental Risk, School of Envi-ronmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK. pp. 201.

Sopow, E. (1994). The Critical Issues Audit. Issue Action Publications, 207 Loudon St., SE,Leesburg, VA 20175, pp. 122.

Susskind, L. and Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Ap-proach to Resolving Disputes. Free Press, New York, pp. 276.

UK Department of Health (1998). Communicating About Risks to Health: Pointers to GoodPractice. UK Department of Health, London, pp. 30 (ISBN 0113222572)

Verband der Chemischen Industrie (1994). Leitfaden "Krisenmanagement" für die Öffentlich-keitsarbeit (Guidelines on crisis management for public relations work). VCI, Frank-furt, pp. 15.

Viscusi, W.K. (1993) Product-risk labeling. A federal responsibility. AEI Studies in Regula-tion and Federalism. AEI Press, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C. (dis-tributed by UPA, Inc., Lanham, MD/ London, UK), pp. 83.

Wiedemann, P. and Schütz, H. (2000). Developing Dialogue-Based Risk CommunicationProgrammes. Prepared for WHO-Monograph on EMF risk communication. Studies onRisk Communication 79, Research Centre Jülich, Germany, March 2000, pp. 50.


Wiedemann, P., Schütz, H. and Brüggemann, A. (1999). Leitfaden zum Umgang mit Proble-men elektromagnetischer Felder in den Kommunen (A Guide to dealing with EMFproblems in municipalities). BMU, Berlin/ Research Centre Jülich, Jülich, pp. 92. [InGerman]

Wiedemann, P.M., Carius, R., Henschel, C., Kastenholz, H., Nothdurft, W., Ruff, F. and Uth,H.-J. et al. (in press, 2000). Risikommunikation für Unternehmen: Ein Leitfaden (AGuide to Risk Communication for Companies). Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, pp. 101.

Wogalter, M.S., DeJoy, D.M. and Laughery, K.R. (eds.) (1999). Warnings and Risk Commu-nication. Taylor and Francis, London/ Philadelphia, pp. 365.

RISK COMMUNICATION FOR CHEMICAL RISK …Introduction to the Background Paper 1 RISK COMMUNICATION...

Documents

Transcript of RISK COMMUNICATION FOR CHEMICAL RISK …Introduction to the Background Paper 1 RISK COMMUNICATION...